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 [The following version is reproduced here from the unpublished manuscript, with the kind permission of the author.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.... 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 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 high priesthood, the summit of the sacred ministry" (Apostolicae curae). DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PRIEST AND THE BISHOP In the traditional ordination rite of the priest, the Bishop instructs him that his function is "to offer sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize." (In the post-Conciliar rite this instruction has been deleted and the priest is consecrated to "celebrate" the liturgy which of course means the Novus Ordo Missae.103) Such an instruction is not all-inclusive, for it mentions nothing of the power of absolution - its intent being to specify the principal functions of the priest. The power to absolve is however clearly specified in other parts of the traditional rite. (Again, the post-Conciliar rite has abolished the prayer that specifies this power.) Bishops however have certain powers over and beyond those of priests. According to the Council of Trent, "Bishops, who have succeeded to the position of the Apostles, belong especially to the hierarchical order; they are set up, as the same Apostle [St. Paul] says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God; they are superior to priests, and can confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, ordain ministers of the Church, and do several other functions which the rest who are of an inferior order have no power to perform" (Denz. 960). Again, the seventh canon on the Sacrament of Orders states: "if anyone says the bishops are not superior to priests, or have not the power of confirming and ordaining, or have that power but hold it in common with priests... let him be anathema" (Denz. 967). However, as Father Bligh states in his study on the history of Ordination: "from the practice of the Church it is quite certain that a simple priest can in certain circumstances (now not at all rare) administer Confirmation validly, and it is almost certain that with Papal authorization he can validly ordain even to the deaconate and priesthood. The Decree for the Armenians drawn up by the Council of Florence in 1439 says that the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and the ordinary minister of Ordination - which would seem to imply that in extraordinary circumstances the minister of either Sacrament can be a priest. Since the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera of 14 September 1946, it has been the common law in the Latin Church that all parish priests may confer the sacrament of Confirmation on their subjects in danger of death. And there exist four Papal Bulls of the fifteenth century which empowered Abbots, who were not Bishops, but simple priests, to ordain their subjects to Sacred Orders; two of them explicitly give powers to ordain "even to the priesthood."104 Some have held that such ordinations were invalid because the popes were acting "under duress," but the fact remains that, at least with regard to the Deaconate, these powers were exercised for centuries without papal objection. In the Greek and other "Eastern Churches," the priest is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and the Bishop is the Ordinary minister of Ordination.105 Canon Law (1917) states that "the ordinary minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop; the extraordinary minister is one, who, though without episcopal character, has received either by law or by a special indult from the Holy See power to confer some orders" (CIC 782 and 951). Now the term "extraordinary" minister is important, for it is commonly used with regard to the priest who administers the Sacrament of Confirmation; in the post-Conciliar Church it is used to describe lay- persons who distribute the bread and wine. And so it seems necessary to conclude that a simple priest can, by Apostolic indult, be given certain powers, or, since no additional ceremony is involved, the right to exercise certain powers that normally are not considered appropriate to his status. One could draw a parallel with the Sacrament of Baptism which is normally administered by a priest, but which under certain circumstances can be administered by any Catholic. How are we to resolve these seeming conflicts? One solution is to consider the right of conferring Orders as juridical. When Pope Pius XII gave permission for parish priests to become extraordinary ministers of Confirmation, he did not confer this power by means of a sacramental rite, but through the a mandate. Thus, one could hold that by his ordination every priest receives the power to confirm and ordain, but cannot utilize these powers without papal authorization. As Father Bligh says, "by his ordination to the priesthood a man receives no power whatever to confirm or ordain..." He, however, is stamped with an indelible character so that "he is a fit person to whom episcopal or Papal authority can communicate power when it seems good." On the assumption that the matter is jurisdictional, several questions can be raised. Did Christ Our Lord Himself lay down the rule that in normal - or perhaps all - circumstances, only bishops should confirm and ordain? Was this rule laid down by the Apostles in virtue of the authority they received from Christ? Is the rule sub-Apostolic, which would make it part of ecclesiastical law rather than revelation? Further, the necessity for the papal indult can be conceived of as arising either from an ecclesiastical law restricting the priest's valid use of his power, or from a divine law requiring that a priest who exercises these powers must receive a special authority or some kind of jurisdiction from the Pope. The Council of Trent deliberately left the answer to these questions open and undecided. In its sixth Canon on the Sacrament of Order it simply states: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy, instituted by divine ordination and consisting of bishops, priests and deacons, let him be anathema." Before adopting the phrase "by divine ordination" the Council considered the phrases "by divine institution" and "by a special divine ordination," but rejected them because it did not wish to decide the question. Reference to the practice of the early Church suggests that normally all the Sacraments were administered either by the Bishop or by priests explicitly delegated by the Bishops. Bligh quotes De Puniet as saying that priests in Apostolic times administered the churches under the direction of the Apostles and almost certainly enjoyed the fullness of sacerdotal powers which included the power of ordination. St. Jerome taught that the priest at his ordination received the power to ordain, which power was immediately restricted ecclesiastically. Even in mediaeval times, after the bishops ordained a priest, the other clergy present would place their hands on the head of the ordinands (the "matter" of the rite) and repeat the consecratory prayer - thus acting as "concelebrants." In current traditional practice the priests bless the ordinands by placing their hands on their heads, but they no longer repeat the consecratory form. The point is important for under such circumstances it is clearly only the bishop who ordains. The post- Conciliar Church retains this practice. IS THE BISHOP ORDAINED OR CONSECRATED? The question as posed is illegitimate, for Pius XII uses both terms interchangeably in his Sacramentum Ordinis.106 The real issue is whether or not the raising of a priest to the rank of Bishop involves a sacramental act or an administrative decision. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) "most of the older scholastics were of the opinion that the episcopate is not a Sacrament; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e.g. Billot's De Sacramentis), though the majority of theologians hold it as certain that the Bishop's ordination is a Sacrament."107 Whatever the answer, two points are clear: 1) the Council of Trent defines that Bishops belong to a divinely instituted hierarchy, that they are superior to priests, and that they have the power of Confirming and Ordaining which is proper to them" (Sess. XXIII, c. iv, can. 6 & 7). 2) Leo XIII, as already noted, clearly teaches that the episcopate "belongs most truly to the Sacrament of Order," and Pius XII, in defining both the Matter and Form to be used in the rite, implicitly teaches that it is, indeed, a sacramental act. The position taken in this paper is that, while the issue as to whether a simple priest receives the power (not the right) to ordain remains open, the Episcopate remains part of the Sacrament of Order. Despite the fact that the power to ordain is a lesser power than that of offering the propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead (i.e, the Holy Mass), and despite the fact that the priest may indeed already have this power, one can certainly hold that special graces are required of a Bishop to properly perform his functions, and that these graces are transferred to him by means of a sacramental act. It is thus that the Bishop receives within this Sacrament what is called the "summum sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood." Again, it should be stressed that in the ordination of priests, regardless of earlier practice, both in the traditional and the post-Conciliar practice, it is only the Bishop who repeats both the matter and the form. Consequently, when a Bishop ordains, the "validity " of his own orders and of his sacramental act remains not only essential, but critical. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SACRAMENTAL RITE OF ORDINATION The rites used for Ordination are to be found in the Pontifical, a book that contains all the rites and ceremonies that are normally reserved to Bishops. Such was not always the case, for the first time we find reference to Pontificals as such is around the year 950 A.D. Prior to that time, however, ordination rites existed and were to be found in various collections under a variety of different titles. One of the earliest of such collections still extant is that compiled in Rome by the schismatic anti-Pope Hippolytus - about the year 217 - and it is essentially from this source that Paul VI derived the new post-Conciliar rite of episcopal ordination.108 Next in time are the three famous "sacramentaries" of the Roman Church, called the Leonine (Pope St. Leo died in 461), the Gelasian (Pope St. Gelasius died 496) and the Gregorian (Pope St. Gregory the Great died in 604). These collections of ceremonies include ordination rites. The last was revised and introduced into the Carolingian Empire during the eighth century; it was subsequently further revised and eventually became the Pontifical, a title that as such dates from 954. In the thirteenth century the celebrated canonist Guillaume Durand once again revised the text and this in turn was the basis of the first printed Pontifical which was issued in 1485. With the advent of printing, greater uniformity throughout Christendom became possible and Pope Innocent VII formally recommended the use of this text to all the churches in communion with Rome. Now, presumably St. Leo did not himself create the ordination rite found in his sacramentary - but rather wrote down the practice of the Church as he received it. No significant change in the rites of the western Church occurred between the time of St. Leo (461) and 1968. THE ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE ORDINATION RITES In the sixth chapter of the Acts, the disciples, at the bidding of the Apostles, chose seven deacons. "These were set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them." The two elements discernible in this unique description of the Apostolic rite, that is, the outward gesture of imposing hands and the recitation of a prayer, form the substance of the rite of ordination.109 Prior to the twelfth century liturgical and theological writers did not concern themselves with determining the precise moment of ordination or the exact words required for validity. They were inspired with the principle of retaining intact all that had been handed down to them, though they did not hesitate at times to elaborate the rites further with appropriate additions. They were doubtless satisfied with the knowledge that the whole rite properly performed conferred the priesthood. However, when one reads their explanations of the symbolism involved in the rites, one can conclude that they had opinions about what was essential as opposed to what was ceremonial - thus some thought that the sacrament was conferred by the imposition of hands on the ordinand's head, while others considered that it occurred when the bishop anointed the hands or gave the newly ordained priest the paten and chalice - the so-called "tradition of instruments."110 As noted above, it was William of Auxere or St. Albert the Great who introduced the Aristotelian terminology of "matter" and "form" into the discussion, a pattern followed by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventura and all subsequent writers. Yet these individuals had differing opinions as to just what constituted proper matter and form. Once again, it should be stressed however that they accepted without question the traditional rites of the Church handed down from time immemorial. They also recognized that these rites, like the Mass itself, had undergone certain changes in the way of appropriate additions (but not deletions) over the centuries. Thus for example, the tapping of the shoulder of the Deacon with the Scriptures could not have occurred prior to the Scriptures having been written, and this occurred years to decades after the death of our Lord. Again, the "tradition of instruments" was added to the rite some time after the fourth century and is not even mentioned in any ritual composed before 900 A.D. One must logically assume that the essential form and matter remained unchanged from the time of the Apostles who ordained the first Deacons and Priests. Appropriate additions, unlike deletions, do not affect validity. DETERMINING THE "SUBSTANCE" OF THE SACRAMENTAL FORM As noted above, the form and matter of Holy Orders were not among those given in specie, or precise detail, by Our Lord. These being established by the Apostles, the Church was free to change the words of the form, providing she retained their "substantial" nature as specified by Christ or the Apostles. The first "semi-official" pronouncement by the Church on the issue of the necessary "form" is to be found in the Decree for the Armenians promulgated in 1439: "The sixth Sacrament is that of Order; its matter is that by giving of which the Order is conferred: thus the priesthood is conferred by giving the chalice with wine and of a paten with bread... The form of the priesthood is as follows: "Receive power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." This statement reflected the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and the shared common practice of the Roman and Armenian churches. It was however never considered as definitive. For one thing, the Greeks, the validity of whose Orders has never been questioned, do not practice the "tradition of instruments." For another, historical studies demonstrate that this practice was introduced sometime after the fourth century. Thus it is that the Fathers at the Council of Trent left the issue open and deliberately avoided defining either the matter or form of this sacrament.111 EVENTS DURING THE REFORMATION Luther and those that followed after him, clearly denied that the Mass was an immolative Sacrifice, and among other things, propitiatory for the living and the dead. If such is the case, it follows that there is no need for a priesthood. Hence it is that Protestants deny that Holy Orders and the rites that flow from Orders are in fact sacraments at all. (They only accept Baptism and Marriage as such.) However the reformers faced a serious problem. The laity were unwilling to accept as religious leaders individuals who were not in some way consecrated, and in whom they did not see the character of their familiar priests.112 As a result, the reformers devised new rites aimed at incorporating their new and heterodox theology, but clothed them in the outward forms familiar to the people. In essence they did this by changing the form of the Sacrament, and by deleting any statements in the accompanying rites (what theologians call "significatio ex adjunctis") that specified special powers and graces such as were pertinent to the priesthood or episcopacy. In England, Cranmer (strongly influenced by both Luther and Calvin) was the individual who master-minded the changes during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI - changes incorporated into the Anglican Ordinal.113 During this period innumerable "presbyters" and "bishops" were "ordained" with rites aimed at voiding the Catholic understanding of their function.114 Shortly after this first apostasy of the English realm the true faith was restored under Catholic Queen Mary. Almost at once the problem of the validity of these Cranmerian ordinations came into question. In June of 1555 Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Praeclara carissimi, in which he stated that anyone ordained a Bishop who was not "rite et recte ordinatus" (properly and correctly ordained) was to be ordained again. He further clarified this statement in another Brief entitled Regimini universalis (issued October 1555) in which he stated "eos tantum episcopos et archepiscopos qui non in forma ecclesiae ordinati et consecrati fuerunt, rite et rect ordinatos dici non posse (Anyone ordained to the rank of bishops or archbishops by rites other than those used by the Church are not properly and correctly ordained.") To be properly and correctly ordained it was necessary to use the "customary form of the Church." In accord with the traditional practice of the Church, the fact that rites were performed by schismatics did not invalidate them. Where doubt existed conditional re-ordination was required. This practice of the Church did nothing to solve the issue of what was correct form and matter, and what has to be understood is that the theologians of that period were not concerned with determining the matter and the form, but with assuring themselves that the entire rite of the Church be used with the proper intention on the part of the officiating consecrator. But it was also a period when the number of Protestant sects was growing by leaps and bounds, and with them the number of rites containing major and minor changes. As in the Mass, minor changes did not necessarily invalidate the rite or even make it depart from what was considered customary form. To make matters worse, affairs in the Anglican Church later took a conservative turn. After the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Puritans with their anti-sacramentarian attitudes gained increasing control. But in 1662 under Archbishop Laud, there was a reaction in the opposite direction which resulted in the creation of a "High Anglican" party that Romanized much of the Anglican liturgy while firmly retaining her reformist principles. Words were added to the consecratory forms of Orders to bring them closer to Catholic practice - specifically the term "priest" and "bishop" were introduced into their formulas and the claim put forth that the Anglican body was, like the Greek Church, separate but "orthodox." The "branch theory" was born and they claimed the status of a "sister Church." Regardless of the words used however, the adherence to Protestant theology (Anglicans still had to adhere to the "39 Articles.") left these rites with at least a defect of intention.115 And so the debates went on as to what was proper form and matter, and what constituted the essential words required to confer the priestly and/or episcopal character on ordinands. A Sacrament must by definition be an "outward sign of inward grace instituted by Christ for our sanctification" (Catechism of the Council of Trent.) As Leo XIII stated in his Apostolicae curiae, "all know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the essential rite, that is to say, in the 'matter' and 'form,' it still pertains chiefly to the 'form' since the 'matter' is the part which is not determined by itself but which is determined by the 'form.'" (One can illustrate this with Baptism where the matter is water and the form is "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.") The "form" is then of paramount importance and it is primarily this which we will concern ourselves in what follows. THE WORK OF FATHER JEAN MORAN By the middle of the 17th century, both as a result of printing and the increase in international travel, scholars became familiar with the ordination rites in use throughout the world. In 1665, Jean Moran, a French Roman Catholic theologian, published a work in which he set out a large collection of ordination rites of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Following the principle that the matter and form must be something which was held in common by all these valid rites, he concluded that for matter what was required was the imposition of hands,116 and that all the forms agreed in requiring that the office conferred must be specified. To quote him directly: "Let Protestants search all Catholic rituals not only of the West, but of the East; they will not find any one form of consecrating Bishops (or priests), that hath not the word Bishop (or priest) in it, or some others expressing the particular authority, the power of a Bishop (or priest) distinct from all other degrees of holy orders." This of course was a private opinion and theologians continued to debate as to whether it was sufficient that the office conferred be mentioned in the other parts of the rite - the so-called principle of "significatio ex adjunctis." Further, as already mentioned, Protestant sects who had in earlier times avoided the word "priest" like the plague, began to re-introduce the word "priest" within the context of their rites - understanding by the term "priest," not a "sacrificing priest," but an individual elected by the community to preach the Word of God. In a similar manner they re-introduced the term "Bishop" - but understood in a purely juridical or administrative sense and often translated as "overseer." This particular issue - namely, the need to mention the office of the ordinand within the "form" - was seemingly settled by Leo XIII's Apostolicae curae which criticized the Anglican form prior to 1662 for lacking this specification, and criticized the Anglican form after 1662 for using the terms priest and bishop in other than the Catholic sense. THE DEFINITION OF PIUS XII As a result of the work of Jean Moran, Catholic theologians shifted the grounds of their objection to Protestant ordination rites. Two things became clear: 1) the fact that they had no "tradition of the instruments" could no longer be said to invalidate them, and 2) the prayer "Accept the Holy Ghost" which the Anglicans used in their episcopal ordinations and which they claimed transferred the sacramental power, was not universally used, and hence could not be said to constitute an essential part of the rite. (This sentence is highlighted for later reference.) Debate on the issue of the "form" continued until 1947 when Pius XII determined for all future times just what the matter and the form for the Sacrament of Order was. His definition is to be found in the Decree Sacramentum Ordinis,117 which document has, according to such renowned theologians as J.M. Herve and Felix Capello, all the characteristics of an infallible definition.118 According to Father Bligh, "its purpose was not speculative... but practical." The rite itself was in no way changed, and indeed, Pius XII insisted that it should not be. His aim was "to put an end to scruples about the validity of Orders received by priests who felt that some possibly essential part of the long and complicated rite had not been properly performed in their cases." For the future it intended "to remove all disputes and controversy: the character, graces and powers of the sacrament are all conferred simultaneously by the imposition of hands and the words Da quaesumus... the other ceremonies - the vesting, anointing, tradition of instruments and second imposition of hands - do not effect what they signify; they signify in detail what has already been effected by the matter and the form." FORM AND ESSENTIAL WORDS FOR ORDAINING PRIESTS (PIUS XII) Pius XII stated that "the form consists of the words of the 'Preface,' of which these are essential and required for validity": "Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent." (Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them so that they may obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives inculcate the pattern of holy living). Similarly, in the ordination of bishops, the same infallible document states that "the form consists of the words of the Preface of which the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity": "Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica" (Fill up in Thy priest the perfection (summum can also be translated "fullness") of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty). It should be stressed that Pius XII in no way changed the rite - indeed, he stressed that the rite was to remain intact. At the end of the document he states: "We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it..." THE PROBLEM OF SIGNIFICATIO EX ADJUNCTIS According to the majority of theologians, "Catholic theology teaches that if a properly constituted minister of a Sacrament uses due matter and form, with at least the minimum personal intention necessary, his sacrament is valid, even if he adheres to a sect which is openly heretical."119 Now if this is the case, it would seem that the remainder of the rite - the so-called "ceremonial" part - is not essential for validity. (As has been pointed out elsewhere, a priest who uses these criteria within a non-Catholic rite is guilty of sacrilege, but sacrilege as such does not necessarily invalidate the Sacrament.) Despite this principle, Pope Leo XIII taught that the revised 1662 form of Anglican Orders is invalid (among other reasons) because the terms "priest" and "bishop" mean vastly different things to Anglicans than they do to Catholics. This, he said, is made clear from the other parts of the Anglican rite which deliberately delete every reference to the sacrificial nature of these exalted states. To quote him directly: "In the whole [Anglican] ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not only entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out..."(Apostolicae curae). In the traditional Catholic rite innumerable references make it clear that the primary function of the priest is to offer the Sacrifice; his other functions are also delineated. (So also with the Bishop.) The fact that other parts of the rite make the meaning of the form quite clear is termed significatio ex adjunctis. It would seem that while a positive significatio ex adjunctis may not be essential for validity, a negative one - as for example when every reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood is deliberately omitted - may invalidate the form.120 THE POST-CONCILIAR RITE FOR ORDAINING PRIESTS The issue of significatio ex adjunctis becomes critical in evaluating the validity of the post-Conciliar rite for ordaining priests. Like its Anglican prototype, the new Latin "form" contains the word "priest," but like its Anglican prototype, the remainder of the new rite fails to specify the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.121 Thus it would appear to suffer from precisely the same defects that Leo XIII pointed to in the Anglican rite. It is interesting to consider Michael Davies' assessment of the new rite.122 "Pope Paul VI promulgated the new ordination rites for deacon, priest and bishop with his Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio of 18 June 1968. Where the rite for ordaining a priest is concerned, the first point to make is that the matter and essential form designated by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis remain unchanged. [This is not strictly speaking true as the next section points out. Ed.] this is a point in favour of the new rite. It is the only point in its favour. The traditional rite of ordination has been remodeled 'in the most drastic manner,' and following Cranmer's example, this has been achieved principally by the subtraction of 'prayers and ceremonies in previous use,' prayers and ceremonies which gave explicit sacerdotal signification to the indeterminate formula specified by Pius XII as the essential form. This formula does indeed state that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the priesthood - but so does the Anglican. Within the context of the traditional Roman Pontifical there was not the least suspicion of ambiguity - within the new rite there most certainly is. While the new rite in no way suggests that it is not intended to ordain sacrificing priests, where (and if) it does refer to the sacrifice of the Mass it does so in muted tones, and with considerable stress is laid on the ministry of the Word - a change in emphasis well calculated to please the Protestants... Cranmer's reform has been followed not simply in the composition of the new Ordinal, denuded of almost every mandatory reference to the sacrifice of the Mass - the very term 'Sacrifice of the Mass' does not occur in either the Latin or vernacular version of the 1968 Catholic rite."123 Michael Davies further points out that, while the "form" used in the new rite is not greatly different from that specified by Pius XII, it nevertheless contains nothing "to which any Protestant could take exception," and nothing that "in the least incompatible with Protestant teaching." Now, if the form is "indeterminate," and if the remainder of the rite fails to specify that it intends to ordain sacrificing priests, then the new rite suffers from exactly the same defects as its Anglican prototype. The fact that Leo XIII's irreformably condemned the Anglican rite on just these grounds obviously justifies raising questions about the validity of the post-Conciliar result. So much is this the case that Michael Davies believes that the strongest - and perhaps only - argument in favor of its validity is that it was promulgated by a valid Pope (Paul VI). While the principle that a valid pope cannot promulgate an invalid sacrament is correct, Michael Davies seems oblivious to the possibility that his argument can be inverted. If the rite is shown to be invalid, or for that matter, even doubtful, one is forced to question the legitimacy of the pope.124 Michael Davies is of course mistaken when he states that the post- Conciliar "form" for ordaining priests is unchanged. Consider once again the words specified by Pius XII: "Da quaesumus, omnipotens pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent" (Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them so that they may obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives inculcate the pattern of holy living). The sacrosanct character of the substance of a sacramental form has already been discussed. Pope Pius XII specified that for validity the Sacrament of Order must clearly specify the sacramental effects involved. These are, in the rite under consideration, the power of Order and the Grace of the Holy Ghost (Sacramentum Ordinis). If we examine this new formula we see that the first part expresses the power of the priestly order, but not the grace of the Holy Ghost. The word "priesthood," however, has lost its specifically Catholic meaning during the past few centuries, so that the second sentence fulfills two functions: it specifies that the priesthood is an "office of the second rank," and further specifies that the "grace of the Holy Ghost" accompanies the Sacrament. When we come to the post-Conciliar form, confusion reigns. In the Latin, the form specified in Paul VI's official promulgation (found in the Pontificalis Romani Recognitio) uses the phrase "in his famulos tuos (similar to the traditional form and Pius XII), while the Acta Apostolica - equally official - uses the phrase "his famulis tuis." Further, regardless of which post-Conciliar form is considered "official," both delete the word "ut." What do these changes signify? The deletion of the word "ut" (meaning "so that") removes the causal relationship between the two sentences. No longer is it made clear that the ordinand receives the "office of the second rank" as a result of the "renewal of the Spirit of Holiness." Whether or not this invalidates the rite is open to question and much depends on the reason why ut was deleted. By changing in hos famulos tuos (on these Thy servants) to his famulis tuis, not only are the words of Pius XII further altered, but their sense is changed. In hos famulos tuos implies giving something to the ordinand in such a manner that it enters into him and becomes interior to him. To specify his famulis tuis has the sense of giving something to someone merely as an external possession - without the idea of it entering into him and becoming part of him. The significance of this difference should hit home, as Father Jenkins points out, when we remember that we are speaking here of the order of priesthood which involves the indelible character imprinted upon the very soul of the recipient. This idea is clearly conveyed in the traditional expression, but not in the new form created by Paul VI.125 Rather, the new formula communicates the idea that the priesthood is an external office (such as the "Presidency"), and such as Reformers believed in, such a change in meaning is clearly "substantial." Things are made even more confusing when the vernacular is used, The "provisional" ICEL (English) translation used between June 1968 and June 1970 asked the Ordinand be given "the dignity" of the "presbyterate." Now the term "presbyter" has been used throughout history by the Reformers to designate their non-Sacrificing and non-ordained "ministers." As I have clearly shown elsewhere, the term in English can in no way be considered as equivalent to "priest" - indeed, it signifies just the opposite, and even the High Anglicans reject its use.126 This casts still further doubt on validity - as is recognized by the fact that after 1970 the ICEL translation no longer used it, but reverted to "priesthood." However, the innovators seem determined to maintain the doubtful status of the rite. Even though in 1970 they changed "presbyter" back to "priesthood," they also changed the meaning of the second part of the formula by mistranslating and changing "the office of the second rank" (the importance of which was demonstrated above) to "co-workers with the Order of bishops." Needless to say, this latter phrase is completely indeterminate and can mean almost anything except "office of the second rank." Highly significant of the post-Conciliar presidential "ordination" is the omission or rather deletion of the phrase which states that a priest is ordained according to the Order of Melchisedech, for Melchisedech who is both king and priest, is a figure of the Messias who offers a sacrifice of bread and wine.127 Consider some of the other deletions. In the traditional rite the Bishop addresses those to be ordained stating "...it is a priest's duty to offer the sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize." This admonition has been abolished in the new ceremony. In the traditional rite, while the men to be ordained lie prostrate on the floor, the litany of saints is sung: "That thou woudst recall all who have wondered from the unity of the Church, and lead all unbelievers to the light of the Gospel." This unecumenical petition is excluded. Again, in the traditional rite, after the newly ordained priests are vested with stole and chasuble, the Bishop recites a long prayer including the words "Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of Thy people, bread and wine into the body and blood of Thy Son." This prayer has been abolished. In the traditional rite, after the anointing and consecrating of the hands which are then bound together, the bishop extends to each priest the Chalice containing wine and water, with a paten and host upon it for the priest to touch, while he says to each: "Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead in the name of the Lord." This has also been abolished. Again, just before the postcommunion, each new priest kneels before the Bishop who lays both hands upon his head and says: "receive the Holy Ghost, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Again, this has been abolished. The final blessing of the Bishop: "The blessing of God Almighty come down upon you and make you blessed in the priestly order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for sins of the people to Almighty God" has been abolished. So much for the significatio ex adjunctis of the new rite. But if all this is not enough to cast doubt on the validity of post- Conciliar ordinations, there is yet more. Obviously, one of the requirements for valid ordination of a priest is a validly ordained Bishop. No matter how correct the rites used for the priesthood are, the absence of a validly ordained bishop would make the rite a farce.128 Let us then look at what has been done for the Episcopate. COMPARING THE TRADITIONAL WITH THE POST-CONCILIAR MATTER AND FORM FOR ORDAINING BISHOPS As noted above, Pope Pius XII, while in no way changing the rite used since time immemorial,129 determined in a presumably infallible manner that: "In the Ordination or Consecration of Bishops the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the consecrating Bishop. The form consists of the words in the Preface of which the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: 'comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica - fill up in Thy priest the perfection (summum can also be translated "fullness") of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment this Thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty." Later in the same document he states: "We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it..." One would have thought that this statement by Pius XII had settled the issue once and for all. Not so! Only 20 years later we find Paul VI issuing his Apostolic Constitution entitled Pontificalis Romani (June 23, 1968) in which he retains the matter - the laying on of hands - but in which he specifies that the form for ordaining bishops is to be: "et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis apostolis, qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indificientem nominis tui - So now pour forth upon this chosen one that power which is from You, the governing Spirit whom You gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."130 We have then two forms, or more precisely two groups of "essential" words wherein the substance of the form is to be found, and both of which are stated to be required for validity. How are we to explain this apparant disparity. We know that the Church has the right to change the wording of the form for Holy Orders, but only in so far as she doesn't change their "substance" or meaning. The problem to be resolved then, is whether both forms mean the same thing. Several approaches are possible. 1) We can compare the wording of the two forms and find those words or phrases held in common. Doing this however yields the following common element: the single word "et" which means "and." Now, obviously "and" cannot represent the substantial aspect of these two forms and such an approach must be rejected as absurd. 2) Another way to determine the substance of the form is to consider the various consecratory prayers in use throughout the universal Church (Eastern and Western). This was indeed done by Jean Moran, and still later, by the English bishops in their "Vindication of the Bull" Apostolicae curae."131 "In each of the rites which the Catholic Church has recognized, the 'essential form' is contained in a 'consecrating prayer' to accompany the imposition of hands, and these prayers are in all cases of the same type, defining in some way or other the Order to which the candidate is being promoted, and beseeching god to bestow upon him the graces of his new state."132 They then proceed to give a list of these prayers which includes the ancient Leonine Sacramentary "still preserved in the modern Pontifical," the Greek, the Syro-Maronite (which is also the Syro-Jacobite), the Nestorian, the Armenian, the Coptic (or Alexandro-Jacobite) and the Abyssinian, together with the ancient Gallican, the rite in the Apostolic constitutions, and the "Canons of St. Hippolytus." They proceed to list the significant words respectively in each - the "High Priesthood" (summi sacerdotii), the "Pontifical dignity," the term "Bishop,:" the "perfect (or complete) priest," and the "Episcopate." This specification is to be found in all the known used forms (i.e., in the essential words of the various Western Catholic and Orthodox Churches).133 It is even found in the Canons of Hippolytus. The form of Paul VI does not fill these requirements. Present in the words specified by Pius XII, it is conspicuous by its absence in the post-Conciliar form. Neither the rank, nor the power, nor a clear equivalent is present. And as Leo XIII made clear in his Apostolicae curae, the mentioning of the Holy Ghost - if "Governing Spirit" is in fact the Holy Ghost - is insufficient. 3) Another way to determine what is substantial is to consider the opinions of the theologians during the post-Reformation period. They are reviewed in some detail by Paul Bradshaw in his history of the Anglican Ordinal. One such individual was the Benedictine Wilfrid Raynal who stated that a valid form must express the distinctive character of the order being conferred in one of three ways: a) An allusion to the type found in the ancient Testament of the order conferred; b) The mention of some spiritual power which is the distinctive privilege of the order to which the candidate is raised; or c) The actual mention made of the office under the name which from earliest times has become attached to it, viz summus sacerdos for Bishop or Sacerdos secundi ordinis for Priest. He further added that the actual mention of the words Bishop and priest must really and truly bear the meaning attached to them by the Universal Church. A formal denial of the distinctive character of these two sacred offices must vitiate the Intention, and would render the ordination null and void. Now, as Bradshaw points out, "all the Western and Eastern forms fulfilled these requirements." The new rite of Paul VI does not. All debate is resolved by the statement of Pius XII in his Sacramentum Ordinis. As the renowned theologian J.M. Hervé, who considers this definition infallible, states: "forma vero, quae et una est, sunt verba, quibus significatur effectum sacramentale, silicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti - the true form (i.e., the substance of the form) is that which signifies the sacramental effect, which is to say the power of "orders (i.e., priest or bishop) and the grace of the Holy Spirit."134 Consider once again the form specified by Paul VI: "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing spirit whom you gave to your beloved son Jesus Christ, the spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name." It is perfectly clear that in no place is it specified that the rank or dignity of a Bishop has been conferred. The request that God give the "governing Spirit" (Spiritum principalem - whatever that is) "whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy Apostles" may imply that he is raised to the rank of the Apostles, but it doesn't clearly so state. The sacramental effect is not clearly specified and at best we are left with another post-Conciliar ambiguity. Again, in the former, the grace of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated by the time honored phrase "Coelestis unguenti rore" while in the latter we are left with a phrase entirely new to sacramental theology - spiritum principalem. In so far as some will argue that this phrase (or the phrase "eam virtutem quae a te est, Spiritum Principalem) suffices for the substance of the form, and indeed, in so far as it is the only phrase in the new form for which such a claim could be made, it behooves us to examine it in detail. SPIRITUM PRINCIPALEM - WHAT IS IT? Apart from the concoction ascribed to Hippolytus (discussed below) the phrase "spiritum principalem" is not to be found in any known ordination rite, as can be seen by referring to either "Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolic curae,' or Bishop Kendrick's book on "The Validity of Anglican Ordinations," both of which list all the known episcopal rites. The phrase is found in only one place in Scripture - Psalm 50, verse 14 - "redde mihi laeitiam salutaris tui et spiritu principali confirma me - restore unto me the joy of thy salvation and strengthen me with a governing (or upright) spirit.." The context is that of David asking God's forgiveness for his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and the strength to control his passions, and thus can be applied to any individual.135 What does the word Principalem mean? Cassell's New Latin Dictionary translates it as 1) first in time, original; first in rank, chief; 2) of a prince; 3) of the chief place in a Roman camp. Harper's Latin Dictionary also translates it by the term "overseer." Now this latter term is of great interest because it the one used by the Reformers to distort the true nature of a Bishop. As the Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae' points out: "The fact that the Anglicans added the term Bishop to their form did not make it valid because doctrinally they hold the bishop to have no higher state than that of the priest - indeed, he is seen as an 'overseer' rather than as one having the "fullness of the priesthood." It is pertinent that post-Conciliar theologians have recognized the difficulty of adequately translating this phrase into the vernacular. Prior to 1977 it was rendered in English as "Perfect Spirit," but since then Rome has officially insisted on the phrase "governing" or "ruling" Spirit, and in French, "the Spirit of Authority."136 Father B. Botte, O.S.B., the individual (apart from Montini) primarily responsible for the creation of this new rite for Ordaining Bishops, tells us in the semi-official journal Notitiae that the meaning of the phrase need not necessarily be drawn from its Scriptural use. Indeed, he states that in the third century it probably had a meaning quite different from that used during the time of David and that in Hippolytus's document it almost certainly meant Holy Spirit. He explains that meaning in the following words: "The expression has, for the Christian of the third Century (the time of Hippolytus) a theological meaning which has nothing in common with the thought of the king of Judah [David] twelve centuries earlier. Even assuming that "principalis" is a mistranslation, it is not important here. The only problem is to know what meaning the author of the prayer (Hippolytus) wanted to give the expression." The statement as applied to a Sacramental form is a quite extraordinary new force. It admits that not only are we unsure of the meaning of "principalis" but that the word itself may be a mistranslation. It further admits that this critical word is not derived from either Christic or Apostolic sources. But even more, Father Botte, with exquisite historical insight (some seventeen centuries after the fact), proceeds to tell us just what Hippolytus did mean! "The solution must be sought in two directions: the context of the prayer and the use of hegemonikos (Greek for principalis) in the Christian language of the third century. It is clear that "spirit" means the person of the Holy Ghost. The whole context so indicates: everyone keeps silent because of the descent of the "Spirit." The real question is why among other relevant adjectives, has principalis been chosen? The research must be widened here." Father Botte then proceeds to give us a truly innovative theological interpretation of the primary function of the different members of the hierarchy in orders, and moreover one which the new rite incorporates. "The three hierarchies have the gift of the Spirit, but it is not the same for each of them. For the bishop it is the 'Spiritus Principalis'; for the priests who are the counsellors of the bishops, it is 'Spiritus Consilii'; for the deacons who are the right hand of the bishop it the 'Spiritus zeli et sollicitudinis.' It is evident that these distinctions are made in accord with the functions of each rank of minister. It is clear then that principalis must be understood in relation to the specific function of the bishop. One only has to reread the prayer to be convinced of this... God has never left his people without a chief, nor his sanctuary without ministers... The bishop is the chief of the Church. Hence the choice of the term hegemonikos is self explanatory. It is the gift of the Spirit that pertains to the chief. The best translation would seem to be "the Spirit of Authority."137 Those unfamiliar with Catholic teaching will perhaps not be shocked by this statement made by the person who was the principal architect of the new rite of Holy Orders. Suffice it to say that the primary function of the Bishop is to ordain priests; the primary function of the priest is to offer the immolative sacrifice. Without this power, the power to forgive sins cannot be received. It is a common saying among Catholic theologians that the priest must receive first the power over the real Body of Christ, and only afterward over the mystic body of Christ or over the Christian people whose sins he forgives or retains. Nowhere in the new rite for ordaining priests is it made clear that he is given the power to offer sacrifice, and no where in that of bishops that he is given the power to ordain! The new form also asks that this "Governing Spirit" that is given to the ordinand be the same that was given to the Holy Apostles. It should be clear that such a request in no way states that the ordinands are themselves raised to the rank of the Apostles. (It would after all be legitimate to ask God to give any Catholic layman the same Holy Spirit that was given to the Apostles.) Now, Leo XIII makes note of the fact that the Anglican rite has the phrase "Receive the Holy Ghost" but that this "cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify." And so, even if we grant that this governing Spirit could be the Holy Spirit, the form lacks sufficient "power" to function in a sacramental manner. What is more, its use thrusts the sacramental form into a totally Protestant setting. THE PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING OF THE EPISCOPAL RANK Many Protestant sects retain the title of "bishop" among their clergy. This is true for the Lutherans in Germany, but not in America. It is also true of the Anglicans, the Episcopalians, and certain Baptist sects. Yet all of these denominations deny that either the priesthood or the episcopacy involves any imprinting of a sacramental character. In what sense then do they understand the function of their bishops? Their primary function is jurisdictional. While it is true that Anglican bishops "ordain" and "confirm" - both are in their view non-Sacramental acts. In England they are appointed by the reigning King or Queen who is the current "head" of their Church. Among other Protestant sects they are "elected" from among the people. And thus, in all these situations they are seen as "overseers." The inclusion of the term "bishop" and "high priest" in a Protestant rite in no way confers on such a rite validity in the Catholic sense, especially when all reference to Catholic understanding of their function is deliberately removed from the content of the sacramental form and from the remainder of the rite. Moreover, Leo XIII instructs us in his Apostolicae curae that such terms when used in ambiguous situations must be understood in their Protestant sense. Thus the use of "governing spirit" is not only inoffensive to Protestants; it also functions to make the new rite highly acceptable to them. This is not to deny that Catholic bishops have such a function - what is offensive in a supposedly Catholic rite is the implication, if not the ecumenically inspired surrender, that this is their only - or even their primary - function. In determining Anglican orders to be "null and void" Leo XIII discussed the "negative" effect of the remainder of the rite - its significatio ex adjunctis - upon an indeterminate sacramental form. The deliberate deletion from the rite of all reference to a Catholic understanding of Orders made it quite clear that the Sacramental form was meaningless. If the new post-Conciliar rite follows the Anglican prototype in this, then clearly it is subject to the same condemnation that was leveled against Cranmer's creation. Before discussing this aspect of the problem however, we must examine with greater care the source from which Paul VI drew his new sacramental form. THE SOURCE OF PAUL VI'S ORDINATION RITE When Paul VI approved the new rite for ordaining bishops in June of 1968 he stated that "it was necessary to add, delete, or change certain things, either to restore texts to their earlier integrity, to make the expressions clearer, or to describe the sacramental effects better... it appeared appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer which is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written in the beginning of the third century, and which is still used in large parts in the ordination rites of the Coptic and Western Syrian liturgies." Needless to say, he does not tell us why it was necessary "to add, delete or change certain things" which had presumably been adequate for some 2000 years. As to whether the result expresses things more "clearly" or "describes the sacramental effects better," this the reader will have to see for himself. But Paul VI is up to his old tricks again. While he is correct in pointing to the "Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus" as the source of his new rite, he stretches the truth to the limit in stating that this highly questionable document is 'still used in large part in the ordination rites of the Coptic and Western Syrian liturgies." In fact the Hippolytus text has almost nothing in common with the eastern rites, and the crucial words - especially the critical phrase of "governing spirit" is nowhere to be found within these eastern rites. Let us then compare these still used rites with the new rite. The first paragraph below is translated from pages 204-5 of the Pontifical of the Antiochean Syrians, Part II, printed in 1952, Sharfe, Lebanon, and carries the Imprimatur of Ignatius Gabriel Cardinal Tappuni, Syrian Patriarch of Antioch. This is the rite used by the Coptic and West Syrian Liturgies. The second paragraph is the consecratory prayer promulgated by Paul VI - supposedly taken from the first. It is taken from the new rite in English as used in the United States. THE ANTIOCHEAN PONTIFICAL "O God, Thou hast created everything by Thy power and established the universe by the will of Thine only Son. Thou hast freely given us the grasp of truth and made known to us Thy holy and excellent love. Thou hast given Thy beloved and only-begotten Son, the Word, Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, as pastor and physician of our souls. By His Precious Blood Thou hast founded Thy Church and ordained in it all grades pertaining to the priesthood. Thou hast given guidance that we may please Thee in that the knowledge of the name of Thine Anointed has increased and spread in the whole world. Send on this Thy servant Thy Holy and Spiritual Breath so that he may tend and oversee the flock entrusted to him, namely - to anoint priests, to ordain deacons, to dedicate altars and churches, to bless houses, to make appointments, to heal, to judge, to save, to deliver, to loose and bind, to invest and divest, as well as to excommunicate. Grant him all the power of Thy saints - the same power Thou gavest to the Apostles of Thine only begotten Son - that he may become a glorious highpriest with the honor of Moses, the dignity of the venerable Jacob, in the throne of the Patriarchs. Let Thy people and the flock of Thine inheritance be well established through this Thy servant. Give him wisdom and prudence and let him understand Thy will, O Lord so that he can discern sinful things, know the sublimities of justice and judgement. Grant him this power to solve difficult problems and all bonds of iniquity." PAUL VI'S CONSECRATORY PRAYER God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you dwell in heaven, yet look with compassion on all that is humble. You know all things before they come to be; by your gracious word you have established the plan of your Church. From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation. You established rulers and priests and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you. From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen. (All consecrating bishops) So now, pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing spirit whom you gave to your beloved son Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the Holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name. (The essential words of Paul VI's form are in italics, but are not to be found in the Antiochean Pontifical.) (Principal consecrator alone) Father, you know all hearts. You have chosen your servant for the office of bishop. May he be a shepherd to your holy flock, and a high priest blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day; may he always gain the blessing of your favor and offer gifts of holy Church. Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood grant him the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, to loose every bond by the authority which you gave to your Apostles. May he be pleasing to you by his gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you, through Jesus Christ, your Son, through whom glory and power and honor are yours with the holy spirit in your holy Church now and forever. (All) Amen." (The essential "form" as specified by Paul VI is italicized. The two words printed in bold script represent the only two significant words that the prayers have in common. In the Antiochean rite, while the essential words are not specified - the theological terms of form and matter are not used in the eastern Churches - the bishops hands - the matter of the sacrament - are placed on the ordinand's head for the entire prayer, while in the new Roman rite, only during the repetition of the essential form. As pointed out in the introduction, form and matter must be united to effect the sacrament.) Clearly the prayer taken from the Antiochean Pontifical is intended to consecrate a Catholic bishop and fulfills several times over all the requirements we have discussed in the section on the History of Sacramental Rites. The latter has barely a dozen words in common with the former and is suitable for use in the most liberal Protestant communions. It is hardly just to say that one is derived from the other. Obviously deleted from the eastern liturgical prayer are such phrases as "anointing priests" - there is a vast difference between "ordaining priests" and "assigning ministries." Also deleted are references to his function of protecting the Church against heresy. The post-Conciliar "bishop" is to "loose every bond" but not "to loose and bind, to invest and divest, as well as to excommunicate." Retained however are two important words - that of "bishop" and "high priest," but they are placed outside the "essential" form. Moreover, one can seriously question whether the terms "bishop" and "high priest" can be understood in the Catholic sense of the words. In view of any proper indication in the significatio ex adjunctis, one can be permitted to doubt it. Where then does the new "form" of Paul VI come from. The answer is the "Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus.138 THE "APOSTOLIC TRADITION" OF HIPPOLYTUS The real source of Paul VI's new consecratory prayer is the so-called "Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus - a composite document of dubious origins for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it was ever actually used to consecrate a bishop. We shall consider two aspects of the problem raised by the use of this source: Who was Hippolytus and what do we really know about the form he used? Hippolytus was a highly enigmatic person who lived in the third century. He was born about 160 and is thought to have been a disciple of St. Iranaeus. He became a priest under Pope Zephyrinus about the year 198 and won great respect for his learning and eloquence. Because of doctrinal differences with the Pope, Hippolytus left Rome, found a bishop to consecrate him, and established a schismatic Church, as a result of which he was formally excommunicated. He drew up his "Apostolic Traditions" while he was outside the Church, presumably to establish a "pontifical" for his schismatic sect. Subsequently, after Maximus became emperor and instituted a new persecution against the Christians, both he and the reigning Pontiff (Pontianus) were arrested and sent to the mines in Sardinia. It was here, just prior to his death, that he became reconciled to the Church. both he and the Pope were martyred together and later canonized. The Hippolytic schism ended with this event. The text written by Hippolytus as a "Pontifical" for his schismatic sect was named by him "The Apostolic Traditions." (He was not the last to lend authority to his acts by referring them back to "earlier authority"!) In so far as Hippolytus was extremely conservative - he objected to the legitimate relaxation of the Church's laws, especially those related to forgiving and readmitting to communion those Christians who in times of persecution had sacrificed to the Roman gods, it has been assumed that he preserved the rites then in use - but this is by no means certain. Now Hippolytus wrote in Greek, and once the Roman Church adopted the almost exclusive use of Latin, his works were for all practical purposes forgotten in the West. The particular work in question, "The Apostolic Traditions," was rediscovered by Job Ludolf in Ethiopia in 1691. In 1848 another version came to light through the study of Coptic documents. Still later a Sahidic version was found, and then, around 1900, a Latin translation from the Greek in the sixth century came to light. None of these versions were complete and scholars therefore were forced to "reconstruct" the various segments in order to produce a relatively cohesive document. According to Professor Burton Scott Easton of Cambridge University, we can summarize what we know of this document in the following words: "The original Greek of the Apostolic tradition has not been recovered, except in small fragments. the Latin is generally trustworthy, but is incomplete. The only other primary version, the Sahidic, is likewise incomplete, and the results of the moderate abilities of its translator have been further confused in later transmission. The Arabic is a secondary text, offering little that the Sahidic does not contain. The only practically complete version, the Ethiopic, is tertiary and is otherwise unreliable. All four of these versions presuppose a common Greek original, in which two different endings have been conflated. The other sources, the Constitutions, the Testament and the Canons are frank revisions, in which the original is often edited out of recognition or even flatly contradicted. Under these conditions the restoration of a really accurate text is manifestly impossible."139 With this in mind, and with absolutely no idea of what Hippolytus considered to be the "form" or essential words involved, let us consider his consecratory prayer as the scholars have reconstructed it: "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and god of all comfort, who dwellest on high, yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of Thy Church by the words of Thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, Thou has glorified among those (or possibly, in those places) whom Thou hast chosen. Pour forth now the power which is Thine, of Thy governing spirit which (Greek version)... Thou gavest to Thy beloved Servant (Greek but not Latin) Jesus Christ which he bestowed on his holy apostles (Latin)... who established the Church in every place, the Church which Thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of Thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant whom Thou hast chosen to be bishop, (to feed Thy holy flock, in some versions) and to serve as Thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate Thy countenance without ceasing and to offer Thee the gifts of the holy Church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to Thy commandment, to assign the lots according to Thy precept, to loose very bond according to the authority which Though givest Thy apostles, and to please Thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through Thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to Thee glory, might honor, and with the Holy Spirit in the holy Church both now and always world without end. Amen (Greek)."140 Such then is the true nature and source of the post-Conciliar sacramental prayer for ordaining bishops. Clearly we have no exact knowledge of the form that Hippolytus used, and just as clearly, there is no evidence that the form adopted by Paul VI was ever used to ordain anybody. What are we to say when the Church teaches: "Matter and Form must be certainly valid. Hence one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."141 THE COUP DE GRACE In the traditional rite, prior to the superimposition of hands - the matter of the rite - the Consecrator took the open book of the Gospels, and saying nothing, laid it upon the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop-elect, so that the printed page touched the neck. One of the chaplains kneeled behind supporting the book until it was given into the hands of the Bishop-elect. After this the consecrator superimposed his hands on the head of the ordinand, saying "Receive the Holy Ghost," and then proceeded with a short prayer and the preface which contained the words of the form. There was a moral continuity of action so that the form was not really separated from the matter. In the new rite the principal consecrator lays his hands upon the bishop-elect in silence. Following this the principal consecrator places the open Book of the Gospels upon the head of the bishop-elect; two deacons, standing at either side of the bishop-elect, hold the Book of the Gospels above his head until the prayer of consecration is completed. Here the continuity of action is discontinuous which is to say that the matter and the form are separated by the imposition of the Gospels over the head of the bishop-elect. Whatever we may think of the new "form," tradition makes it clear that the form must be added to the matter in order for the sacrament to be effected. In Holy Orders, it is the superimposition of the hands which is the matter (as confirmed by Leo XIII in his Apostolicae curae.) As Augustine said with regard to Baptism: "What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in water by the word. Take away the water and you have no Baptism; take away the word, and you have no Baptism." And again: "And in water the word cleanses. Take away the word and what is water but water? The word comes to the element and a sacrament results."142 Now the Matter and Form must be united or concurrent. "The matter and form must be united - so far as union is possible - to produce the one external rite, and so to produce a valid Sacrament..." However in Holy Orders, "moral simultaneity is sufficient, that is, these Sacraments are valid though the proximate matter is employed immediately before or after the use of the word. What interval would suffice to render the Sacrament invalid cannot be determined; the interval of the recital of the 'Our Father' appeared sufficient to St. Alphonsus, but in such matters we should not rely on probabilities, we should make sure the matter and form are as united as we can make them."143 In the new rite, the placing of the Gospels on the head of the bishop- elect comes after the superimposition of hands and thus breaks the "moral simultaneity" between the matter and the form much in the same way as taking a coffee- break at this moment would break it. Once again, one is given grounds for seriously doubting validity. OTHER ASPECTS OF THE NEW EPISCOPAL RITE - ITS "SIGNIGICATIO EX ADJUNCTIS" It may be argued that the other parts of the post-Conciliar rite - its "significatio ex adjunctis" - function to correct the obvious defects of a highly indeterminate form. It behooves us then to examine the remainder of the ceremonies and see if such is the case. We will consider this under the two categories of additions and deletions. WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED Reading through the text of the new Ordination Rite for Bishops one finds the Consecrator's Homily given under the title "Consent of the People." This is a totally Protestant concept, for in Catholicism the bishop is appointed by the Pope (or his agent), and no consent on the part of the laity is required. Did Christ ask for the approval of anyone in appointing the Apostles? Continuing in the next paragraph we are informed that "in the person of the bishop, with the priests around him, Jesus Christ the Lord, who became High Priest for ever, is present among you. Through the ministry of the bishop, Christ Himself continues to proclaim the Gospel and to confer the mysteries of faith on those who believe..." Such a statement is again misleading for strictly speaking, the presence of Christ among us and the proclamation of the Gospel do not depend upon the bishop. However, this manner of expressing things has the advantage of being acceptable to Protestants. Next we read that the bishop is a "minister of Christ" and a steward of the Mysteries of God. He has been entrusted with the task of witnessing to the truth of the Gospel and fostering a spirit of justice and holiness." But this task is not particular to a bishop. Each and every Catholic is obliged "to give witness to the truth and to foster a spirit of justice and holiness." In a still later paragraph the bishop-elect is told that he is to be an "overseer." Once again we are left with an individual whose function as a Catholic bishop is in no way delineated. There is nothing in the entire statement that would offend Protestants, and indeed, the delineation of his function as "overseer" would delight them. And so this homily continues to the end without providing any positive significatio ex adjunctis. What follows is the "Examination of the Candidate." Again, the bishop- elect is asked if he is "resolved to be faithful and constant and proclaiming the Gospel of Christ." The only part of this examination which could relate to his function as a Catholic bishop is the question as to whether or not he is "resolved to maintain the Deposit of Faith entire and uncorrupt as handed down by the Apostles and professed by the Church everywhere and at all times." He must respond in the affirmative, but then, so must every layman who wishes to call himself a Catholic. Moreover, it is obvious from the statements of the post-Conciliar bishops that they hardly take this responsibility seriously.144 After the Litany of the Saints we find what is perhaps the only saving statement in the entire post-Conciliar rite. The principal consecrator at this point stands alone, with his hands joined and prays: "Lord, be moved by our prayers. Anoint your servant with the fullness of priestly grace and bless him with spiritual power in all its richness." This prayer is also found in the traditional rite where the Latin for the important phrase is "cornu gratiae sacerdotalis" (literally, "the horn of sacerdotal grace"). The statement however is ambiguous because the "horn of sacerdotal grace" - or even the mistranslation "fullness of priestly grace" could be applied to the priesthood as much as to the episcopacy. Moreover, and most important, it is made outside the sacramental form and apart from the matter, and it in no way specifies the power or grace conferred in the Sacrament. WHAT HAS BEEN DELETED In the present historical context, and in view of Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae curae, what has been deleted is of greater significance than what has been added. Because of the great length of the traditional rite (taking some two or three hours to say), I shall only discuss those passages which might influence the validity of the Sacrament. The traditional rite is initiated by a request on the part of the senior assistant to the Consecrator: "Most Reverend Father, our holy Mother the Catholic church asks that you promote this priest here present to the burden of the episcopate" (Retained). this is followed by an oath on the part of the ordinand in which he promises God "to promote the rights, honors, privileges and authority of the Holy Roman church: and to "observe with all his strength, and cause to be observed by others, the rules of the Holy Fathers etc..." (Omitted in the new rite and replaced by the Homily described above under the title of "Consent of the People.") Next proceeds the "examination of the candidate" in which he is asked among other things if he will "keep and teach with reverence the traditions of the orthodox fathers and the decretal constitutions of the Holy and Apostolic See." (Omitted, though he promises to "maintain the deposit of faith, entire and uncorrupt, as handed down by the Apostles and professed by the Church everywhere and at all times"). Then he is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the Creed (Omitted). Finally he is asked if he will "anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church" (Omitted). The deletion of the requirement to anathematize heresy is significant, for this is indeed one of the functions of a Bishop. Further, this function remains unspecified in the remainder of the post-Conciliar rite. In the traditional rite the consecrator instructs the bishop elect in the following terms: "A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms." Now such a statement is indeed important for the significatio ex adjunctis. Its deletion in the new rite is most significant. Nowhere in the new rite is it stated that the function of the bishop is to ordain, or to confirm, much less to judge (to loose and to bind). The consecratory prayer in the traditional rite of the Roman Church is different from that of the Antiochean-Syrian rite and provides the necessary "form" (including the essential words as specified by Pius XII. Its content or "substantial meaning" is sufficiently close to that of the Coptic, Antiochean and Syrian prayers as to require no further discussion. If in fact Paul VI had adopted the form used in the Eastern rites, absolutely no doubt would remain about validity. In the traditional rite, after the consecratory prayer, the functions of a Bishop are once again specified. "Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit... Grant him, O Lord, an episcopal chair..." This entire prayer has been omitted in the new rite. THE RESULT OF THESE CHANGES IS THE PROTESTANTIZING OF THE ORDINAL; SOME WORDS OF LEO XIII TAKEN FROM HIS APOSTOLICAE CURAE Clearly, almost every reference to a specifically Catholic understanding of the episcopate has been deleted from the post-Conciliar rite. Included in these deletions are his function of ordaining priests, confirming, and his use of the "Keys." Admittedly the term "bishop" is retained, but outside the essential form, and in such a way as would in no way offend our Protestant brethren. As such there is no positive significatio ex adjunctis, but rather a negative one. With this in mind, let us consider some of the statements of Leo XIII in his Apostolicae curae that irreformably declared Anglican Orders "null and void."145 "In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose of the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the Priesthood of the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify." "The same holds good of episcopal consecration... Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, 'Almighty God,' since it, in like manner has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium." "The episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely that which by the teaching of the holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium, sacri ministerii summa. So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the same reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and Sacrifice." Michael Davies, despite his dubious conclusion (The Order of Melchisedech") that the new ordination rite is unquestionably valid, provides us with all the necessary evidence required to state that the intention of Paul VI was to make the new ordination rites acceptable to Protestants. He also provides us with the evidence that Paul VI's Ordinal was created with the help of the same henchmen that assisted in creating the Novus Ordo Missae - Archbishop Bugnini and the six heterodox (Protestant) "consultants." Francis Clark also stresses Paul VI's ecumenical intent. Indeed, he goes so far as to parallel it with Cranmer's intent in creating the Edwardian (Anglican) rite, namely that of destroying the sacerdotal character of Orders. He considers the Cranmerian result invalid, but that of the post-Conciliar church as legitimate because it derives from a Pope.146 Let the import of such an intent be clear. Protestants deny the sacramental character of orders, and any attempt to create a rite that would satisfy them must resort to both ambiguity and deliberate obfuscation of doctrine. If Michael Davies' contention is correct, and I believe it was, Paul VI had no choice but to deliberately delete every reference to a specifically Catholic characterization of the Episcopacy. Let us once again turn to Leo XIII's Apostolicae curae: "For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized... The history of the time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal... As to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects... for this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, or consecration, of priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, and as We have just stated, every trace of these things which have been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out." "In this way, the native character - or spirit as it is called - of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself... any words in the Anglican Ordinal as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. [highlighting is mine] For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the sacrament, and so the words 'for the office and work of priest or bishop,' and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted." CONCLUSION If the post-Conciliar rite, animated by a spirit of false ecumenism, follows the pattern established by its Cranmerian prototype; if it is, as Michael Davies contends, a move in the direction of a Common Ordinal, and if it deletes every phrase which characterizes a Catholic episcopacy, not only from the essential form, but from the entire rite, then it must logically be subject to the same condemnations that Leo XIII promulgated against Anglican Orders. In fact, there is not one statement in the above quotations from his Apostolic Bull which cannot be applied to it. If one adds to this the abrogation of the traditional form as specified by Pius XII's ex cathedra pronouncement, and the change in the "substance" or meaning of the essential words specified as its replacement, we are left with the unfortunate conclusion that the bishops ordained by the new rite may be in no way different from their Lutheran and Anglican counterparts. And if the ordination of post-Conciliar bishops is at best extremely doubtful, what is one to say of the ordination of "presbyters" under their aegis. In so far as the ordination rite for the priesthood has been criticized on similar grounds, we have a situation where doubt is added onto doubt. This in turn places all the other sacraments (except of course baptism and matrimony) on equally dangerous ground. The reader is reminded that, in the practical order, for a rite to be doubtful is the same as for it to be invalid. As Francis Clark says, "probabalism may not be used where the validity of the sacraments is in question," and as Father Jones states, "Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form."147 Even worse than placing the various aspects of the Sacrament of Order and their dependent sacraments in doubt, is the question that these ritual changes raise about what is called the Apostolic Succession. The Bishops are the descendents of the Apostles and retain all the functions of the Apostles except that of Revelation. If their "descent" is nullified and voided, hopes for reconstituting the Church that Christ established in a saner age are also seriously circumscribed. CHAPTER III - EXTREME UNCTION "The Christian at least has the last sacraments administered a few hours in advance [of death]." Sigmund Freud148 Catholics have always had the security of knowing that, when in danger of death, the Church provided them with a saving Sacrament of a most powerful nature. Indeed, many a Catholic family is familiar with the story of some lapsed member, away from the Sacraments for years and even decades, who at the last moment asked for the priest in order to receive the "last rites." Will such be possible in the future? One may be permitted to doubt it. What are the effects of Extreme Unction (usually provided after Confession and in association with the Holy Viaticum or the Sacred Species.)? They are as varied as they are potent. Their "end" or "purpose" is said to be "the perfect healing of the soul," and it surely has the inherent power to attain its end in those who pose no obstacle to the grace it conveys. As the Council of Trent explains, "this effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, Whose unction blots out sins, if any remain to be expiated, and the consequences of sin, and alleviates and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy, sustained by which he bears more lightly the troubles and sufferings of disease, and more easily resists the temptations of the demon lying in wait for his heel;149 and sometimes, when it is expedient for the soul's salvation, recovers bodily health." These effects are usually grouped under four headings. The first effect is the Remission of sins which follows from the passage in St. James: "If anyone be in a state of sin, his sins are forgiven him," and which is indeed confirmed by the very "form" of the Sacrament which states "Indulgeat tibi Dominus... quidquid...deliquisti... (May God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed..."). Of course, it is true that mortal sins are forgiven by Confession, Absolution and Penance - but it is not unusual that a sick man, being weak or unconscious, cannot confess; yet providing he places no obstacle to the infusion of Grace into his soul (and implicitly has a proper intention), than through this Sacrament, even if he cannot confess, he is still washed clean of sin and regains his Baptismal purity. To such an individual Extreme Unction becomes the pillar of salvation. It can be argued that conditional Absolution obviates the need for this final Sacrament, but that would be to ignore its other effects. Secondly, this Sacrament remits temporal punishment due to us for our sins. It was, as Father Kilker says, "instituted for the perfect healing of the soul with a view to its immediate entrance into glory, unless indeed the all-knowing master of Life and Death should deem the restoration of bodily health more expedient. Consequently, it must accomplish the removal of all disabilities, it must render us fit to enter our heavenly home without delay. Were this not so, it would be absurd to say that the Sacrament is "consummativum spiritualis curationis."150 This doctrine must not however be construed to mean that when Extreme Unction is received, the remission of the entire temporal debt infallibly occurs. Often the subject blocks the completeness of the effect by defective and impeding dispositions. But, if the subject has in every way the correct disposition and devotion, it must be conceded that he receives the plenissimam poenarum relaxationem - the complete remission of temporal punishment. The third and terribly important effect is what is called the comfortatio animae: or the "Comforting of the Soul." The approach of death with its distressing pains, its physical prostration and the associated mental disquietude, can truly be a most appalling experience. Man dreads few things as much as this "moment of truth." He reviews his past actions and, as it says in the Book of Wisdom, "they shall come with fear at the thought of their sins, and their iniquities shall stand against them to convict them." At the same time he recognizes that soon he must stand before the Judgment Seat of God. It is precisely at this time that the Devil uses all his powers and wiles to attack the soul. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent puts it: "although the enemy of the human race never ceases, while we live, to meditate our ruin and destruction, yet at no time does he more violently use every effort utterly to destroy us, and if possible, to deprive us of all hope of divine mercy, then when he sees the last day of life approach." Now the third effect of this Sacrament is "to free the minds of the faithful from this solicitude, and to fill the soul with pious and holy joy." It further provides "arms and strength... to the faithful... to enable them to break the violence and impetuosity of the adversary, and to fight bravely against him..." Who of us can be so presumptuous as not ardently to desire such assistance? Fourthly, it is a doctrine of our faith that one of the effects of Extreme Unction is the restoring of bodily health, if recovery is expedient for the soul's welfare. As a physician in practice I can testify to this effect without hesitation. Lastly, though not strictly speaking a theological effect, the administration of the Sacrament under traditional circumstances, made it perfectly plain to the individual concerned that he was facing death. He could no longer hide from himself the reality of his situation. He was forced, as it were, to the battlefield, and not allowed to drift away in some gently morphinized dream that "everything will be all right." And how often did physicians and relatives see the wonderful effects this Sacrament worked upon the souls of those who received it - turning as it were, their last moments on earth into a foretaste of that heavenly peace and glory that is in fact, offered to every soul. THE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT According to Father Kilker, "the remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil of olives. The "proximate matter" is the oil of olives blessed by the Bishop. This the Council of Trent definitely defined. "Intellexit enim Ecclesia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo benedictum" (Session XIV). There is no doubt about what St. James meant when he said "oil of olives" (V:14). Initially the oil of the sick could be blessed by priests and even saintly laymen, but ever since the Council of Chalons in 813 canon law requires that it be blessed by a Bishop. In the Eastern Church it is customary for the oil to be blessed by the priest in the house of the sick person. In the Latin church it has ever been the custom to employ pure unadulterated olive oil, to which a fragrant oleoresin called Balm or Balsam has been added. In some Eastern rites the practice of adding a little water as a symbol of Baptism, or of a little wine in memory of the good Samaritan, or even of the dust of the sepulchre of some saint, has long been in vogue. Now this oil is blessed by the Bishop at the magnificent Mass of Maundy Thursday in Holy Week - a Mass so sacred that the Bishop is traditionally attended and assisted by twelve priests, seven deacons and seven sub-deacons in order to say it properly. The prayer reads: Emitte, quaesumus Domine, Spiritum sanctum tuum Paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es and refectionem mentis et corporis..." ("Send forth we pray, Your Holy Spirit, the Paraclite, from heaven into this rich substance of oil..." For Catholics the remote matter of Extreme Unction remains oil of olives and the proximate mattter, "the anointing with oil blessed by a bishop. What then is the "matter" specified by Paul VI? in his new Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick (promulgated November 30, 1972)?151 The answer is any oil of plant origin - and pray - what oil is ultimately not of plant origin? Axle-grease, Vaseline and Mazola oil can satisfy the requirement. Further, the oil can be blessed by any priest who has the "faculty," and this faculty has been extended by the "Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy" to any priest "where didactic or catechetical reasons prompt it." The blessing has of course also been changed. No longer is the Holy Spirit invoked, but rather, it now reads: "May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul." Notice also that the emphasis is almost entirely on the healing of illness, and not on the forgiveness of sins. Let us next consider the "Form" of the Sacrament, or the words that the priest uses when anointing the patient "in danger of death." The traditional words are: "PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM, INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS QUIDQUID PER... DELIQUISTI" ("Through this Holy Unction or oil, and through the great goodness of His mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed [by evil use of sight - smell, touch etc. - depending on the organ anointed.") Needless to say, this form also has been changed by the post-Conciliar Church to "PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE DOMINUS GRATIA SPRITUS SANCTI, UT A PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SOLVAT ADQUE PROPITIUS ALLEVIAT." The semi-official translation given out through the Holy See Press Office is: "Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord assist you by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that when you have been freed from your sins, he may save you and in his goodness raise you up." Another translation taken from Father Keating's article is closer to the original: "Through this holy anointing and His great love for you, may the Lord who freed you from sin, heal you and extend his saving grace to you..."152 The official translation provided in DOL 408 is "through this holy anointing may the Lord in His love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up." Once again we must ask whether this change in the form is substantial. Pre Vatican II theologians are virtually unanimous in stating that the essential words of the form - the words that convey its essential meaning and are therefore "substantial" - are "INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS" - may God pardon thee. Most also insist upon "quidquid deliquisti" and "sanctam unctionem." After all, as Leo XIII said, "the sacraments... ought... to signify the grace which they effect" if they are to "effect what they signify." And in the present situation this is the health of the soul which is effected by strengthening of the soul through grace and by the remission of sins..." (Summa, III, Suppl. 29, 1). Now the new form OMITS all these critical words, and only asks that God "heal" one. While it is to be admitted that throughout history several valid forms have been in use, since the Council of Florence the form has been fixed. If some of these alternative forms used the word "parcat," "remittat," or even "sanat" in the place of "indulgeat," this in no way affected the substance of the form. However, to OMIT the critical phrase entirely is to remove from the "Form" its ability to absolve. What results is a change in "meaning," and to make a change of such a "substantial" nature almost certainly renders the form invalid. Even if the "blessing" is preceded by a valid absolution - which in many cases is also questionable - one is deprived of the other sacramental effects that are so important.153 Should an older priest desire to use the traditional form, he should know that it is specifically forbidden by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution. The post-Conciliar rite is named "Anointing of the Sick." Clearly then, if the post-Conciliar "blessing" is upon the sick, the ersatz sacrament should no longer be limited to those "in danger of death." Twice during the Second Vatican Council the Fathers rejected suggestions that the requirement of "danger of death" for the reception of the Anointing be omitted. As Father Keating points out however, "the new rite does what the Council was not able to do."154 In contrast to the negative wording of Canon 940 which states "Extreme Unction is not able to be offered except to the faithful, who, having attained the use of reason, fall into the danger of death from illness or old age," the new rite can be administered to those who are ill, but in no danger of death whatsoever. Furthermore, in so far as the Constitution on the Liturgy stresses that "whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebrations involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, as far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private." Thus it follows that officially, this new so-called "Sacrament" can be given communally. Indeed, in many parishes, it is the custom to gather all the mildly infirm and aged "senior citizens" together in the parish hall, and to bestow this "blessing" upon them - to be followed by coffee and cake! It is to be admitted that the Apostle James specified the "sick." "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James V:14-14). But it is a matter of common sense that one cannot and should not call the priests for every trivial complaint. The standard practice of the Church throughout history has been to understand by the "sick," those in danger of death - those about to undergo major surgery, those who have had a heart attack etc. The application of the sacrament to a more general category cannot but trivialize it in the minds of the faithful. And indeed, one sees this in that nurses of presumably Catholic background rarely if ever bother to call a priest even when a patient in the hospital is truly in danger of death.155 Such is not to be wondered at when they are taught that "Anointing of the Sick is a ritual moment which makes visible and present to the sick and the whole community an image of who we are as Church, that is, a community of mutual healing and support."156 In actual practice several other "modifications" are allowed for. According to one study, "the sick person and all those present may receive communion under both kinds... If the sick person is not confined to bed, he may receive the sacrament of anointing in the church or some other fitting place, where there is a suitable chair or place prepared for him and enough room for his relatives and friends to take part." The same document continues to state that "in hospitals the priest should consider other sick people": whether they should be included in the celebration, or if they are not Christians whether they might be offended." And so, even in its mitigated form the "president" is to be careful not to offend the Protestants, even if it means depriving a Catholic soul of what he believes (?) is a critical sacrament!157 In the traditional rite the priest arrived in a subdued manner, carrying the Blessed Sacrament in his pyx, and spoke only when necessary. Those who knew and understood his function knelt before him (for he carried the Blessed Sacrament), and those caring for the patient prepared a table by the bed with lighted candles and a crucifix. Whenever possible the priest was accompanied by an acolyte who rang a bell so the faithful would not accidentally slight our Lord. On arriving he would say three short appropriate prayers, the Confiteor, (if appropriate, listen to the patient's confession and give him Absolution158), and then immediately administer the Viaticum. Then with his right hand extended over the head of the patient he said "In the name of the Father + and the Son + and the Holy Ghost +, be there quenched in thee all power of the devil, through the laying on of my hands, and through the invocation of the glorious and holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, her illustrious spouse Joseph, and all the holy Angels, Archangels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, and all the Saints, Amen." Then with his thumb dipped in the Holy Oils, he anointed the sick in the form of the Cross on parts described in the rite above. This was followed with a short responsory prayer (including the Lord's Prayer) and three additional, highly specific prayers for the sick person. Because he was carrying Our Lord's Body, the priest did not stop to chat or have coffee, but returned as quickly as possible to the sacristy. In the new rite the priest arrives - no longer necessarily even dressed as a priest - and greets one and all in a friendly manner. Then instead of doing what he came for, he makes a speech to let all know why he came. This is followed by a "penitential rite" in place of the Confiteor. According to the instructions "whenever possible, Viaticum should be received within mass" (which of course poses no difficulty as the Novus Ordo only requires a table). There follows a short litany which may be transferred to after the anointing, or "at some other point." Now he lays his hands on the sick person in silence, for the various above mentioned prayers are no longer required. As for the anointing, it is limited to the forehead and hands, and this is done with the new "blessing" of dubious sacramental efficacy. This is followed by a prayer "best suited to the person's condition." (Hutton Gibson suggests "Now I lay me down to sleep.") The service ends with the Lord's Prayer and a blessing. Lest this description seem exaggerated, allow me to give the suggested manner of acting according to Father Richstatter, a well known expert on liturgical practice. After suggesting that Confession or the Viaticum (Eucharist) not be administered at the same time as the Sacrament for the Sick, he describes the new way of doing things: "The rite starts much as Mass does: with prayers to gather us into the presence of Christ and of one another, and to recall our continuing need for healing. Holy water may be used to remind us that we have been baptized into the Christ who suffered for us and has transformed our suffering into victory. All sacraments begin with readings from the Bible. The number and length of the readings (and of the homily and general intercessions) will depend on the circumstances. The rite is similar to the first part of Sunday Mass." "After the litany of intercessions the priest will lay his hands on your head. Together with all present he will pray silently for your healing. Next he will bless God for the gift of oil: "God of all consolation... make this oil a remedy for all who are anointed with it; heal them in body, in soul and in spirit, and deliver them from every affliction.' The the priest will anoint you with the blessed oil. First he will make the sign of the cross with the oil on your forehead, saying: 'Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help youwith the grace of the Holy Spirit.' All respond: 'Amen.' the priest will ask that you present the palms of your hands to him and he will anoint them with the sign of the cross: 'may the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.' All respond: 'Amen.' You may find it helpful to rub your hands together and pray that as the oil penetrates and soothes your skin, so may the healing of Christ penetrate and heal any weakness or affliction." Yet another change! In former times the priest would anoint and administer Extreme Unction "conditionally" to a person who was already dead - up to a limited time of about three hours. This was only reasonable because the patient could die while awaiting the arrival of the priest, and because no one presumed to know at just what point the soul departed from the body.159 Now, "when a priest is called to attend those who are already dead, he should not administer the Sacrament of anointing. Instead, he should pray for them, asking that God forgive their sins and graciously receive them into the Kingdom." One would think that even if the president didn't personally believe in the sacramental effects produced, he would administer the rite to console the next of kin. In any event, those who believe in the efficacy of this new rite better be sure they call the president in time. It is interesting in passing to quote Paul VI's description of the new rite. According to him "the celebration of this sacrament consists especially in the laying on of hands by priests of the Church, the offering of the prayer of faith, and the anointing of the sick with oil made holy by God's blessing." But have no fear, for Paul VI continues: "This rite signifies the grace of the sacrament and confers it." Despite his assurances, one may reasonably be allowed to doubt if the new rite conveys anything more than a blessing. It should not be thought that the Church has any objection to the blessing of the sick. Indeed the Roman ritual contains three such blessings: There is an extended blessing with a relic of the true Cross in honor of St. Benedict and St. Maurice, and there is an "ordinary" blessing for both adults and for children.160 This is but further evidence that there was no need to change the Sacrament into yet another such blessing. *** Returning to more serious considerations, let us remember that none of us can escape the possibility of facing death. If we are to believe in the "effects" of the Sacrament, then it behooves us also to believe in the need for its "validity." Validity in turn demands a certain integrity in Matter and Form and hence it is our right to have this integrity retained by the Church that claims to be founded by Christ and the Apostles. No traditional Catholic admitted to the emergency room "in extremis" and asking for a priest, would settle for a Baptist minister - even if he should say the proper words of the form. Yet in fact, of what more use is a priest who uses an incorrect and doubtful form.? One must further express great wonderment at the new breed of priest who feels free to "play around" with such a powerful Sacrament the bestowal of Extreme Unction must be one of the paramount and most satisfying aspects of a priest's life, and is moreover something which in charity and in justice he is bound to provide. And what is one to think of a "Church" that would dupe its obedient and faithful followers, rob them of this pearl, and pay them off with a facile blessing? Indeed, we live in dangerous times and the world itself is in extremis. Unless we take a stand on such issues, we will have little grounds for complaint when on our own death beds we prepare to face our Lord and Judge without the assistance of these necessary graces. CHAPTER IV - CONFIRMATION Confirmation has been called the "compliment and perfection of Baptism," and Scripture tells us that it was conferred by the Apostles: "They laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts VIII:17). The effects of Confirmation are twofold. First of all, it impresses upon the soul a special character which cannot be effaced. This sacramental character makes us soldiers of Christ, and we are thus bound to defend the faith under all circumstances, even at the cost of our lives. Secondly, through Confirmation we receive the Holy Ghost with the abundance of His gifts and graces. He gives us the grace of strength, which confirms evermore within us Faith, Hope and Charity, and thus we are able to confess Jesus Christ by word and deed, and to advance in piety, despite the temptations of the world, the flesh and the devil. "In this sacrament, " says St. Thomas, "is given the plenitude of the Holy Ghost for the strengthening of grace." To fully understand the difference between the graces bestowed in Baptism and Confirmation, one has but to consider their varied effects on the lives of the Apostles. After Baptism and prior to Pentecost, they had lain hidden, timid, fearful and had even denied and deserted Our Lord when threatened. After the descent of the Holy Ghost, they were like lions breathing fire, and not even the threat of death could hinder them from preaching the Gospel. Those of us who have received this Sacrament may see few such dramatic effects in our lives: however, an example will give us encouragement. A man endowed with marvellous strength is not always conscious of that strength until the time comes to use it. So it is with the Sacrament of Confirmation. On special occasions the strength of the Sacrament is experienced, just as it was experienced by the early Christians in times of persecution. Moreover, this is infallibly experienced, providing that sin places no obstacle in the way, for just as sin hinders the grace of a Sacrament in its actual reception, so also does it hinder the effects of the same grace at the moment in which it should be exercised. And so it is that Confirmation bestows upon Christians in substance what the Holy Ghost bestowed upon the Apostles at Pentecost, and enables them to defend the faith against whatever assails it in every age. Let us for a moment consider the words off St. Therese of Liseaux with regard to this Sacrament: "A short time after my First Communion, I went again into retreat for my Confirmation. I had very carefully prepared myself for the coming of the Holy Spirit. I could not understand why so little attention was often paid to this Sacrament of love... How happy my soul was! Like the Apostles I happily awaited the promised Comforter. I rejoiced that soon I should be a perfect Christian, and have eternally marked upon my forehead the mysterious cross of his ineffable Sacrament. On that day I received the strength to suffer, a strength which I much needed, for the martyrdom of my soul was soon to begin" A SHORT HISTORY OF CONFIRMATION Scriptural reference has already been provided. In the second century Tertullian states "after having come out of the laver (baptism), we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction according to the ancient rule... Next to this, the hand is laid upon us, through the blessing calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit." St. Cyprian teaches "anointed also must he of necessity be, who is baptized... a person is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism; that being already born he may receive the Spirit..." St. Ambrose told the catechumens who had just been baptized and anointed "thou hast received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety, the spirit of holy fear; and keep what thou hast received. God the Father has sealed thee... God the Father has confirmed thee: and the Spirit has given the pledge in thy heart..." Pope Innocent III wrote "The anointing of the forehead with chrism signifies the laying on of the hand, the other name for which is Confirmation, since through it the Holy Spirit is given for growth and strength." He further said "We regard Confirmation by the bishop, that is, the laying on of hands, to be holy and to be received with reverence." Innocent IV mentions that the apostles conferred the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hand, which Confirmation or the anointing of the forehead with chrism represents." HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS SACRAMENT? The Church has always taught that the Sacrament of Confirmation was not necessary for salvation. However, Confirmation was instituted for the battles in this life, and is required by precept because Our Lord instituted it as a means of grace. All are obliged, therefore, to receive it, if they are able to do so. The Council of Laodicea in 370 stated that "it behooves those who are illuminated to be anointed after Baptism with the supercelestial chrism, and to be made partakers of Christ." St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church, insists that the obligation to receive it is a serious one. Benedict XIV taught that the obligation bound under pain of sin, if no grave inconvenience was involved in its reception. Clement XIV approved a decree in 1774 which stated that "this Sacrament cannot be refused or neglected without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, if there be an opportune occasion of receiving it." THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT Some historians have claimed that Confirmation grew out of Baptism - citing the fact that in the Eastern church both are given at the same time as evidence. Let us listen then to one of the most important authorities of the Eastern Church, St. John Chrysostom. He tells us that "Philip was one of the seven, the second [in rank] after Stephen. Hence, when he baptized, he did not communicate to the neophytes the Holy Ghost, because he had not the power to do so. This gift was peculiar to the twelve, a prerogative of the Apostles; whence we see [even now] that the bishops and none other do this." In the Western Church, the ordinary (normal) minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the bishop. Since Pius XII's decree Spiritum Sancti Munera of September 14, 1946, it has been common law in the Latin Church that all pastors or their equivalents may confer this sacrament on their subjects in danger of death. In the Eastern Churches today, the ordinary minister of the Sacrament is the parish priest, and the Sacrament is frequently administered immediately after Baptism. It goes without saying that the Priest or Bishop must have been validly ordained. THE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT Chrism blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday is considered to be the "remote matter" of the Sacrament. The Church has always insisted that only olive oil and balm may be used for this purpose. The post-Conciliar Church now allows for the use of any "vegetable oil."161 The reader is referred to the Chapter on Extreme Unction for a fuller discussion of the nature of this oil, and the blessing required to "sanctify" it. (The need for balsam or balm - a fragrant oleoresin exuded from certain plants and trees - to be added to the olive oil was debated by theologians over the centuries, and was considered until 1971 as "of precept" but not essential for validity.) There is some difference of opinion about what is called the "proximate matter." Some theologians hold that it lies in the imposition of hands, while others maintain that it lies in the anointing with chrism. Still others hold that both are required, and some that either is sufficient. Because of the differences of opinion most theologians now hold that both the imposition of hands and the anointing with chrism are necessary. Indeed, in the traditional rite, the bishop performs both actions simultaneously with an individual imposition of hands for each confirmand as the anointing is being done. A prior imposition of hands takes place at the beginning of the ceremony when the bishop extends his hands over the confirmands as a group. In the Eastern Rites, only the second imposition of hands is used, and it is this one which pertains to the "proximate matter." In the new post-Conciliar rite established by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution Divinae consortium naturae (15 August, 1971), and based on his personal reply to a query (DOL 306), only the initial blessing over all the confirmands has been retained. The individual laying-on of hands at the time of the actual anointing has been suppressed. He stated that anointing with chrism "sufficiently expresses the laying on of hands." This decision is interesting in view of the statement by Father Pourrat that "In the Apostolic Age, the matter of Confirmation was the imposition of hands; after the second century, it was, besides, the anointing with holy chrism."162 This constitutes a clear-cut departure from both Scriptural and Patristic custom. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT During the course of history different forms for the Sacrament of Confirmation have been used - they have presumably all been substantially (i.e. their meaning) similar. The Current form has been in use since at least the 12th Century and was specified as such by both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventura, though St. Albert the Great and Alexander of Hales specified slightly different but substantially similar ones. The Council of Florence and the Council of Trent both specified that the formula was "I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (Signo te signo Crucis, et confirmo te Chrismate salutis. In nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.") The form used in the Eastern Churches differs slightly - "The sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost." (The Latin for this would be signaculum doni spiritus Sancti.) This probably dates back to the First Council of Constantinople (381), and certainly dates back to the Trullan Council of 692. (This is not to say that it was not in use prior to that time, but only that we can historically trace its use back to these dates.) Now the essential words must clearly be found in what the Western and Eastern form-ulas have in common. Father Joseph Pohle discusses this in his pre-Vatican II text The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise.163 "Which particular words constitute the substance of the formula is a purely theoretical question that can easily be decided if we admit the Greek formula164 to be essentially equivalent to the longer Latin one... Manifestly, the formula of Confirmation must express two concepts, viz; (1) the act of signing or sealing (signo te) and (2), the grace of the Holy Ghost (confirmo te). Neither the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity nor the words signo crucis and chrismate salutis are essential. So far as we know, all the forms ever used embodied these two leading ideas, at least implicitly." (The blow on the cheek (alapa) did not become customary until the twelfth century. It was apparently devised in imitation of the blow by which knighthood was conferred in the Middle Ages and obviously complemented the concept that the recipient of the Sacrament was now a soldier of Christ.) THE POST-CONCILIAR CHANGES IN THE FORM When we come to the new rite of Confirmation as established by Paul VI's Apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae (15 August, 1971), we find the following statement: "The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by laying on of the hand and through the words 'accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti.'"Officially translated as "Be Sealed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost." Paul VI tells us that he has adopted this formula from the Byzantine Rite, stating, "We therefore adopt this formula, rendering it almost word for word... by which the Gift of the Holy Spirit Himself is expressed and the outpouring of the Spirit which took place on the day of Pentecost is recalled. He is of course correct, for the Greek form, as noted above, is signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti. Why however did he add Accipe which changes the meaning of the words from the active sense of something the Bishop imposes on the recipient, to the passive request for him to accept what is offered? The answer is that by the use of this one word, the recipient is merely asked to receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and this is a purely subjective act on the recipient's part. By doing this Paul VI introduced a formula which is much more acceptable to the Protestants who would be horrified at the idea that an indelible character is imprinted ex opere operato on the recipient. There is yet a further problem with Paul VI's Divinae consortium naturae. In it he states that the rite of Confirmation "recalls" what took place on Pentecost. This is a faulty notion of a Sacrament. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are bestowed once again through the rites of the Church, and not simply "recalled." WHY THE CHANGES? Paul VI tells us that the reason for the revision "which concurs with the very essence of the rite of confirmation" was in order that "the intimate connection of this sacrament with the whole Christian initiation may stand out more clearly." And the result, he assures us is that "the rite and words of this sacrament 'express more clearly the holy things they signify and the Christian people, as far as possible, are able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.'" It is for the reader to judge whether this end has been achieved. CONCLUSION Once again we have a Sacrament whose form and matter have been significantly tampered with. While one cannot officially state that it has been invalidated - indeed, only the teaching magisterium of the Church could ever come to such a conclusion and obligate us to accept it as being "of faith." However, one can certainly state that with the change in the remote matter of olive oil to any vegetable oil, with the suppression of the laying on of hands and the statement that the signing of the forehead with the cross suffices for this, and with the subjective change in the form of the sacrament, an element of doubt has been raised. We are no longer supplied with the necessary medium certum. CHAPTER V - WHAT HAPPENED TO CONFESSION? As Voltaire said: "Repentance for our faults can alone take the place of innocence, and that, to show ourselves repentant, we must begin by declaring them." Few Catholic customs have been subjected to greater criticism than that of going to Confession. One can do no better than to initiate this discussion with the sneering comment of George Bernard Shaw to G.K Chesterton after his conversion: "Your portly kneeling figure" in the confessional would be "incredible, monstrous, comic." More enlightened was Chesterton's answer: "When a Catholic comes from confession, he does truly, by definition, step out into that dawn of his own beginning... in that brief ritual God has really remade him in His own image. He may be grey and gouty; but he is only five minutes old." All of us "who are over 30" remember the long confessional lines that plagued us every week in our childhood. Saints like the Curé of Ars were known to have spent 17 hours continuously in that "dark box" - and those that suspect some "voyeristic" pleasure in such a function would do well to meditate on the fact that man's inventiveness in sin is limited, and that priests have always complained that listening to pettiness of man's repetitive sins is the least pleasant and most boring of all their obligations. All this has changed. Currently only 6% of those who consider themselves Catholic and who go to Church regularly go to Confession on a monthly basis and only 1% more often than that. According to the Notre Dame study in 1983, 26% of those formally affiliated to their parishes never go to confession at all. Now all this is occurring at a time when higher percentages of practicing Catholics are receiving the Eucharist on a regular basis. Studies show that among those who go to Confession once or twice a year or never at all, more than 80% are communicants. Are we to assume that sin has lessened? One may be permitted to doubt this.165 A recent report by the American Bishops' Committee for Pastoral Research and Practice considers the results of such polls "puzzling." Religious liberals conclude that the old forms are no longer serving the believers' needs. Others suggest that the more obvious explanation is a lessened fear of hell and a decreased awareness about the nature of sin and the purpose of the Confessional.166 CONFESSION IS NOT A PSYCHIATRIC SESSION Considerable confusion has been spread abroad by liberal Catholics who attempt to explain away Confession as a "way of getting rid of guilt," and hence as a Catholic variety of psychotherapy. It should be clear that, while the forgiveness of sins carries in its train the removal of guilt - at least that obvious guilt that relates to the sin involved - this is a far cry from the analyst's couch. The Catholic penitent is just that - a penitent. He admits that he is guilty of sin and his forgiveness is among other things totally dependent upon a "firm purpose of amendment." The psychoanalyst who by definition passes no moral judgement on his patient, functions to uncover the root causes for a patient's sense of guilt. This sense of guilt the psychiatrist deals with is in no way objective; it is not an offence the patient is aware of. The psychiatrist functions to help the patient uncover supressed or false reasons for this sense of guilt. If and when he does this, he then attempts to teach the patient how to live with those "negative" (never evil) traits within his and every person's soul. The psychiatrist never forgives - it is the patient who must forgive himself. The psychiatrist never demands retribution, for this also is left to the patient - indeed, if the patient felt the need to perform some penitential act it would be viewed by the analyst as evidence of a persisting guilt complex. The psychiatrist does not demand any amendment of life other than that which the patient may himself recognize the need of. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONFESSION As a result of Adam's "fall," the material and animal principle in man declared war against the spiritual and intellectual - the net result of which is, as St. Paul expressed it, that "I find a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man, but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin" (Rom. VII:22-23). While such is the underlying principle leading to sin, the ten commandments clearly codify those offences against God and one's fellow man. We see also, that even among the Jews, Confession was a "sacrament." In Numbers V: verses 6 and 7 we read" when a man or woman shall have committed any of all the sins that men are wont to commit, and by negligence shall have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and offended, they shall confess their sin and restore the principal itself, and the fifth part over and above, to him against whom they have sinned. But if there be no one to receive it, they shall give it to the Lord, and it shall be the priest's besides the ram that is offered for expiation, to be an atoning sacrifice."167 As with the other sacraments, Confession was established by Our Lord when he said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven" (2.Cor. II:6-8 Cf. also John I:9; James V.16). And from the foundation of the Church the Fathers have encouraged Confession. As St. Clement of Rome said in the First Century: "For whatsoever things, therefore, we have transgressed by any of the suggestions of the adversary, let us supplicate pardon. Tertullian says of this Sacrament that "Confession of sins lightens their burthen, as much as the dissembling of them increases it; for confession savoureth of satisfaction, dissembling of stubbornness... if thou drawest back from confession, consider in thine heart that hell-fire which confession shall quench for thee; and first imagine to thyself the greatness of the punishment, that thou mayest not doubt concerning the adoption of the remedy." St. Cyprian teaches: "we have an Advocate and an Intercessor for our sins, Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, if only we are penitent that we have sinned in time past, and confessing and understanding our sins whereby we now offend the Lord, we promise, for the future at least, to walk in his ways, and to fear his commandments." St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs us to "Put off the old man, who is corrupted according to the deceitful lusts,168 by means of confession, that you may put on the new man." St. Ambrose tells us that "Sins are remitted by the word of God, of which the Levite is the interpreter, and also the executor; they are also remitted by the office of the priest, and the sacred ministry." We see in these early examples all the principles required for a proper confession: the admission of sin to a priest, a firm purpose of amendment; the acceptance of a penance (sacrifice), the need for reparation or restitution where appropriate; and absolution given by the priest as an alter Christus. TO WHOM DO WE CONFESS? It should be clear that through the medium of the priest - who functions as an alter Christus or "another Christ" - it is to Christ Himself that we confess, and similarly, the priest forgives us in the same capacity. This is made strikingly clear in the Eastern Rites where the priest and the penitent approach Christ's icon on the iconastasis; the priest drapes his stole over the penitent who then confesses to both the priest and before the iconographic representation of our Lord. DO WE NEED A PRIEST TO CONFESS TO? St Augustine addresses this issue. To quote him directly: "Let no person say, I do penance in secret in the presence of God; it suffices that he who is to grant me pardon should know the repentance which I feel in the depth of my heart. If such were the case, it would be without reason for Jesus Christ to say, Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, or that He should have confided the keys to His Church. It is not, then, sufficient to confess to God; we must also confess to those who have received from Him the power of binding and loosing."169 And again: "There are some who imagine it is sufficient for their salvation to confess to God, from whom nothing is concealed, and who reads the secrets of all hearts, for they are unwilling, either from motives of shame, or pride, or contempt, to show themselves to the priests, although our Lord has appointed them to discern between the different kinds of leprosy. Disabuse yourself of such an opinion, and be not ashamed to confess to the vicar of the Lord. for we must submit to the judgment of those whom He has not disdained to put in His place. When, then, you are sick, send for a priest to come to you and disclose to him all the secrets of your conscience. Do not permit yourself to be led astray by the false religion of those who tell you, in visiting you, that confession made to God alone, without the intervention of the priest, is capable of saving you. We do not deny that it is often necessary to address ourselves to God, and make our confession to Him, but, before all things, we have need of the priest. Regard him as an Angel sent by God; open to him the innermost secrets of your heart; reveal to him whatever causes you most confusion; be not ashamed to declare to one man what you have not blushed to commit in the presence of many. Make, then, an entire confession, without dissimulation or excuses for your fault. Be simple and exact; make no evasions or circumlocutions, which only obscure and embarrass the truth. Note the circumstances of your sins, the places, occasions, and the persons, without however naming them."170 The Eastern Churches hold to the same opinion. The Confessio orthodoxa directed against Cyril Lucar by Peter Mogilas (1642), which was signed by all the orthodox patriarchs of the time, enjoys among them the value of a creed. It contains the following statement: "This contrition of the heart must be followed by an oral confession of each and every sin, because the confessor cannot forgive anything if he does not know what there is to be forgiven and what sort of penance he is to impose." THE SEAL OF CONFESSION Brief mention must be made of what is called the "Seal of Confession," or the obligation of the priest never under any circumstances to reveal what he hears in confession. The most trifling disclosure, either direct or indirect, is contrary to the very essence of confession. "The seal of confession is of divine right; it rests on the institution of the Sacrament of Penance, on the obligation laid upon us to confess our sins; hence no power can dispense from the law, not even in the case of danger to the commonweal,"171 Civil law has recognized this seal and priests have given up their lives to protect it. Priests who have gone insane, have on being questioned about what they heard in confession, refused to answer. Priests who have left the Church and apostatized from the faith have somehow kept the seal. It is an extraordinary fact that over almost 2000 years of recorded history, no one can point to a documented case where this seal has been violated. WHAT IF NO PRIEST IS AVAILABLE? God does not ask the impossible. Obviously, if no priest is available, one cannot confess to one. However, when in danger of death, a Catholic can request any validly ordained priest to hear his confession. According to Father Augustine, such applies "even [to a priest] who is a member of a schismatic or heretic sect, or apostatized or censured..." Such a priest "may validly absolve anyone in danger of death, even in the presence of an approved confessor."172 A further note has been added to this ruling by a decision of the Holy Office: "provided no scandal is given to the faithful, no danger of perversion threatens the sick person, and finally, provided that it may be reasonably presumed that the schismatic minister will absolve according to the rite of the Church." If even such is not available the person can make what is called an ACT OF CONTRITION. "O My God, I am heartily sorry for my sins, not only because I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell [up to now we have an act of imperfect contrition], but most of all because I have offended Thee My God, who art infinitely good and worthy of all my love. [It is this higher motivation - for the love of God - if sufficiently intense - that makes an act of contrition perfect.] I resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to amend my life, to confess my sins and to do penance" [i.e., make satisfaction]. It should be added that for the dying individual "The Papal benediction with attached plenary indulgence may be gained by saying the Holy Name of Jesus. If unable to say it, the person must at least think it, and with contrition kiss a blessed crucifix."173 THE COMPONENTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE THE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT The acts of the penitent are the proximate matter of the sacrament and as such similar to the anointing with chrism in Confirmation or the use of water in Baptism. Sins are not atoned for simply by fulfilling the sentence of a judge; the Confession of the sinner and the will of an offended God must also be taken into consideration. In view of this three acts are required of the penitent: Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction. CONTRITION is deliberate sorrow for sins which includes the purpose of confessing and making satisfaction for them. The Council of Trent declared that "Contrition... is a profound sorrow and detestation for sin committed, with a resolution of sinning no more. The word Contrition comes from the Latin contritum or contritio which signifies a crushing, breaking or undoing of something - thus it represents that crushing or breaking of man's attachment to sin. Natural sorrow or remorse (such as is based on some worldly motive such as shame) is not sufficient because the Sacrament of Penance pertains to the supernatural order. Attrition or "imperfect contrition" combined with the reception of penance is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. Such for example, as illustrated above in the "act of contrition," is the fear of hell. While this is the least noble of supernatural motives, it is undeniably supernatural because the existence of hell is accepted on divine faith. Further, attrition includes a detestation of sin, which is a means of avoiding hell. This kind of sorrow is likened to the fear entertained by a slave. Perfect contrition however can remit all sin. This is true even when confession is impossible (i.e., when a confessor is unavailable), provided that the desire for the sacrament is included in the contrition, for contrition breaks the attachment of the will to sin. (Contrition does not extend to original sin, which is something that exists apart from the individual's will, nor to future sins which may or may not be committed.) In point of fact, no sin can be forgiven without contrition - in sacramental penance attrition becomes contrition through the power of the Sacrament. The reason for this is that the will cannot both cling to and detest the same sin at the same time. Attrition or Contrition, should be true and formal (i.e., not pretended); it should be supernatural, (i.e. be inspired by and dependent upon grace and motivated by some consideration known by the light of faith); it must be supreme (i.e., the penitent must regard sin as the greatest of evils - this does not require an intense feeling of sorrow, but rather a conviction of the evil of sin); and it must be universal, (i.e. extend to all one's mortal sins). A purpose of amendment is implicit in true contrition, for it is the resolve not to sin again. Without the resolve not to sin again there is no true contrition. Yet this purpose of amendment, which is more than a mere wish of avoiding sins, is not a promise or vow never to sin again. Theologians list three qualities which should be present. The intention must be firm (at least at the time it is made), it must be efficacious (there must be the intent to avoid the occasions for the sin and the ordinary safeguards against sin - both caution and prayer. There must also be the intent to repair as far as is possible the damage done by the sin. And finally, it must be universal (i.e., the resolve to avoid all mortal sins). CONFESSION is defined as the telling of the personal sins one has committed after Baptism to an authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining absolution. Confession is necessary for salvation for anyone who after Baptism has the misfortune to fall into mortal sin. This general obligation which arises from divine law is made more specific by the law of the Church: "Every one of the faithful of either sex, upon reaching the age of discretion is bound to confess sincerely all sins at least once a year" (Canon 906). It is commonly taught that the divine precept of confession would oblige anyone who is in actual or probable danger of death. The precept would also become binding in the face of special circumstances, as for example, when he is about to marry or be confirmed, when one is in need of special graces to overcome temptations, or when he is not in a state of grace and wishes to receive Communion. Confession should be discreet, free, sincere, courageous, marked by shame, sorrowful, humble, truthful, open, simple, entire, accusatory, manifestive of a readiness to obey the confessor, secret, frequent and prompt. SATISFACTION is the last and final aspect of penance. It is an act of virtue which pertains to justice. In making satisfaction for sin, the compensation is not quantitatively, but only proportionately equal. (We can never make adequate satisfaction for a Mortal sin which offends an infinite God and therefore in some way is an infinite offence.) But God accepts this satisfaction (i.e., the penance given) as sufficient to regain divine friendship. As the Council of Trent teaches, "it befits divine mercy that sins not be forgiven us without any satisfaction, lest having thus found an occasion for thinking sins to be light, we fall into graver sins (such as insulting and contemning the Holy Spirit), storing up wrath for ourselves on the day of wrath." Satisfaction can be made in God's sight through the grace of Christ in several ways: 1) By freely undertaking penance for sin. 2) By patiently bearing the temporal punishment sent by God. 3) By doing the penance assigned by the priest in confession. The three principal acts of penance are almsgiving, fasting and prayer which are said to primarily uproot the concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh and pride of life. It should be clear that the penance imposed is a means whereby the penitent satisfies the temporal punishment due to his sins. The eternal punishment due to mortal sin is forgiven by the Sacrament itself; the penance is designed to remit temporal punishment. Normally the priest is obliged to assign a penance. (He might not do so with a dying patient.) Similarly the penitent must perform the penance, which is an integral part of the sacrament. (There is no special obligation to fulfill the Penance before receiving Holy Communion, though this is certainly the best course to follow in practice.) ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CONFESSION Not greatly stressed in texts on Sacramental Theology is another important aspect of Confession - namely spiritual direction. Not infrequently, after having absolved the penitent of his sins, the priest will give a brief instruction to the penitent on the spiritual life, for it is understood that the virtuous life is not an end in itself, but predispositive to the spiritual life. THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT The form of the Sacrament has changed over the centuries. Father Villien lists many of these in his History and Liturgy of the Sacraments.174 Thus for example an early Pontifical from Tours, after stating that Christ had instituted the Sacrament, and after invoking various saints and the Blessed Virgin, states: "ipse vos obsolvat per ministerium nostrum ab omnibus peccatis vestris, quaecumque cogitatione, aut locutione, aut operatione negligenter egistis, atque a vinculis peccatorum vestrorum absolutos perducere ad regnum coelorum. Per Dominum..." (may He absolve you through our ministry from all your sins, be they negligences of thought, word or deed, and absolve you from all the chains of your sins [so that you may attain] to the kingdom of heaven. Through our Lord Jesus Christ....") The traditional form for Absolution which uses the indicative formula "I absolve you from you sins in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" has been in use from at least the thirteenth century, is in conformity with that specified by St. Thomas Aquinas and was affirmed by the Council of Trent. One will note in passing that the substance of the formula remains unchanged.175 THE POST-CONCILIAR CHANGES IN CONFESSION The Concilium responsible for changing the sacraments attempted to alter the traditional form of absolution to "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit I absolve you from your sins and restore you to the peace of the Church," which as Annibale Bugnini points out, "calls attention to the ecclesial aspect of reconciliation." This change was blocked by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on the grounds that it removed the Trinitarian phrase.176 The integrity of the form is preserved. But what of other changes? It is interesting to quote Annibale Bugnini about these. According to him: "the structure [of the sacramental rite] is the same as in the older rite, but has been enriched and revised. The penitent is now welcomed; he makes the sign of the cross and is urged to trust in God's mercy. This opening rite is followed by a reading from the word of God (optional), personal confession, expression of repentance, prayer of absolution, praise of God's mercy, and dismissal of the penitent." "The various formulas put on the lips of the priest and penitent are either taken from or thoroughly inspired by the Scriptures. The presence of God's word as read during or before the sacramental rite urges us to repentance and to proclamation of God's mercy. By means of it the power of God to save is proclaimed in the very midst of human sin. It is a highly significant innovation to have God's word present even in this manner of celebrating reconciliation." Another interesting feature is the "restored" gesture of laying on of hands (or at least the right hand), which accompanies the formula for absolution. Such an action of course requires the removal of the screen between priest and penitent. Such is of course not essential to the rite, but does provide privacy and anonymity. 177 Many new churches provide rooms where priest and penitent can openly face each other, and some have abolished confessionals to force the use of open confession. There is also much talk of celebration - to again quote Bugnini, "the rite is easily adaptable to situations in which there are a large number of penitents. On the other hand, it also becomes possible, especially at times when there is less pressure, to have a true celebration that is spiritually rich and profitable." What is meant by this is that ideally the sacrament should be part of a community celebration. The new rite, now called the Sacrament of Reconciliation, was introduced by Paul VI's Reconciliationem inter deum et homines (2 December 1973). It has three forms: 1) individual reconciliation; 2) communal celebration followed by individual reconciliation for the forgiveness of "grave" sins, and 3) General absolution for use when the numbers of penitents are such as to preclude individual Confession (as in time of war or disaster). The first, apart from the "welcoming," and the reading from the "Word of God," closely resembles what we have always known as the Sacrament of Confession. In the practical order, the "welcoming" and reading from the word of God, being optional, are rarely carried out. The older generation goes to confession in the same manner it always has. The last and third form has always been an option in the Church when large numbers of the faithful were in danger of death and sufficient priests are not available for individual confession - such occurs in time of war or pestilence. The privilege has been extended to cover the situation where there is a genuine shortage of priests. THE SECOND WAY OF RECONCILIATION The second form is the most innovative and the one recommended for use whenever possible. Paul VI gives some of the reasons when he introduced the new Rite of Penance, December 2, 1973: "In the Sacrament of Penance the faithful obtain from God's mercy pardon for having offended him, and at the same time reconciliation with the Church, which they have wounded by their sins..." "The hidden and gracious mystery of God unites us through a supernatural bond: on this basis one person's sin harms the rest even as one person's goodness enriches them. Penance always therefore entails reconciliation with our brothers and sisters who remain harmed by our sins." We see in these brief quotations, not so much a deviation from orthodoxy, as a shift in emphasis. In line with this Paul VI added to the usual way of confessing, what he calls "the second way of reconciliation" which is a communal preparation followed by individual confession and absolution which "combines the two values of being a community act and a personal act." It is the preferable form of reconciliation for our people when it is possible... we hope it may become the normal way of celebration." Further clarification of this change in emphasis is provided by the Decree of Cardinal Jean VIllot and Annibale Bugnini found in the front of the new Roman Ritual. In it they state that this "new rite, beside [being] the rite for Reconciliation of Individual Penitents, [is] a Rite for Reconciliation of Several Penitents [and it] has been drawn up to emphasize the relation of the Sacrament to the community." This shift in emphasis is made more specific by Paul VI's Address to a General Audience given April 1974 (DOL 369): "We must not be indifferent and certainly not distrustful toward the invitation of the Church is now addressing to us to reform our way of thinking and therefore also our religious practice relative to the sacrament of penance, which from now on we will do better to speak of as the sacrament of reconciliation. By that we mean, first, reconciliation with God; this is something we are familiar with even if it will always be a reason for endless and joyous wonder. We mean also reconciliation with the Church... It is at this point that a new matter for reflection begins, offered to our ecclesial consciousness by the publication of the new Rite of Penance... The reflection is this: just as every personal failure has its impact on our own essential and vital relationship with God, so too that failure has its impact on our relationship with the community, which in an analogous sense is also essential and vital...." In the practical order this "second way of reconciliation" has not often been used, and this for the simple reason that it takes longer and requires the presence of several priests to hear individual confessions after the communal rite. FOOLING AROUND WITH THE MATTER The form of the Sacrament remains the same in all three. But what about the matter? We said above that the acts and dispositions of the penitent constitute the proximate matter for the Sacrament. At first it might seem that it was impossible to change this. But is such the case? The matter can be changed by altering the way the penitent views his sins. This has been achieved in several ways. Sin is no longer "mortal," but grave. While one can find the term "mortal in earlier post-Conciliar documents the promulgation of Reconciliationem inter deum et homines reverts exclusively to the term "grave," which term is also found in the new code of Canon Law. The term "grave" has the advantage of not upsetting an older generation, while obscuring the distinction between venial and mortal for the younger generation. The same document also explains that "the ultimate purpose of penance is that we should love God deeply and commit ourselves completely to him... Penance always therefore entails reconciliation with our brothers and sisters who remain harmed by our sins." The Penitent, having expressed his grave sins is now asked by the priest to "express his sorrow... in these or similar words." THE NEW ACT OF CONTRITION "My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Our Saviour Jesus Christ suffered and died for us. In his name, my God, have mercy." At first sight there seems little wrong with this prayer. But notice that, unlike the traditional "Act of Contrition," there is no mention of either heaven or hell;178. there is no recognition of the rewards or punishments due to man for sin, and in line with the definition of penance given above, no sense of the need to make satisfaction. Even more serious is the absence of any distinction between perfect and imperfect contrition. With the decreasing number of priests available, the lack of knowledge about how to make a proper act of contrition when one dies is bound to have serious consequences. Annibale Bugnini spoke of "the various formulas put on the lips of the priest and penitent are either taken from or thoroughly inspired by the Scriptures," being" a highly significant innovation to have God's word present even in this manner of celebrating reconiliation." When we review the various formulas provided we see the same pattern throughout with the occasional additional concept that God should "help us to live in unity with our fellow Christians." THE REAL REASON FOR THE DECREASED USE OF CONFESSION Many older Catholics continue to go to confession as they always did. They can see little difference in their practice, and indeed, in the practical order nothing has changed. This category of Catholic suffers from the attrition of age and is one of the reasons for the decreased use of Confession. Younger post-Conciliar Catholics pose a different problem. For them religion has to a great extent been reduced to the social obligation of helping their neighbor. They are no longer taught about heaven and hell, and no longer have a proper understanding of the nature of sin, contrition and penance. Nor do they see the priest as a man set apart, an alter Christus appointed to guide their souls. Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that they fail to storm the doors of the Confessional. CHAPTER VI - BAPTISM "O thou Adam, what hast thou done? For it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that came of thee." IV Esdras 7:48 (apocryphal) Most Protestant sects have never objected to or denied that Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Hence it would seem that there was little reason for the post-Conciliar Church to engage in extensive revisions of this rite. Nevertheless highly significant changes were introduced which all but invalidate its usage even where form and matter are retained. For a start, the documents relating to the various manners of administering the new rite of Baptism (e.g. for children, for adults, etc.), or as it is called, "The Rite of Christian Initiation (RCIA)," involves some 50 pages of small print. While great stress is placed on baptism being a means of incorporating individuals into the Christian (but not Catholic) community," there is only a single passing reference to original sin. As the new documents stress. "Baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women are incorporated into the Church," and "It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." Given the training of post-Conciliar clergy, it is obvious that the "intention" of the person administering baptism can easily be compromised. A sacramental rite confers grace, but it also instructs. What does the Rite of Christian Initiation teach us? That "above all" what is important is "Initiation into the Christian community." The removal of original sin (if such is admitted to exist) is irrelevant and unimportant. This is the sum total of post-Conciliar Baptismal teaching. It appears that this teaching is not, strictly speaking an error, because it does not directly deny original sin, it only derogates it to the status of an irrelevancy. Nor can we say that promotion of "initiation" is an error. But this initiation is voided of spiritual significance when divorced from its primary purpose. It has no more spiritual significance than initiation into a college fraternity. Consider the situation of a premature infant dying in the arms of its heart broken mother. To such a soul initiation into the Christian community of this world is meaningless. Its soul hungers, as do all human souls, for the presence of God Almighty. If the Baptism of Vatican II is false, it will deny that presence to the child for all eternity.179 Moreover, if the only or even the primary intent of the post-Conciliar rite of Baptism is to welcome individuals into the Christian community, there is an implicit denial of need for redemption and hence of the Sacrifice of Christ. Jesus Christ becomes simply the first leader of the "Christian community" - a sort of first century crusader for equal rights for the oppressed Hebrew minority within the Roman Empire, on a par with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. (It should be noted that this is exactly the way that John Paul II presented Our Lord in his 1996 Easter Sermon.) Such a view is fully consistant with the emphasis that Vatican II placed on the function of the Church being the promotion of "social progress." Equally consistant is the reduction of the role of the "priest" to the status of "president" of the assembly in the Novus Ordo Missae. TEILHARD DE CHARDIN AND THE TEACHINGS OF VATICAN II ON BAPTISM Although Teilhard de Chardin died many years before the new rite of baptism was introduced, the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI, and the liturgical "reformers" were influenced by his teachings. Paul VI, who changed the sacrament of baptism into the rite of Christian Initiation, said that "Fr. Teilhard is an indispensable man for our times; his expression of faith is necessary for us."180 Fr. Teilhard was often quoted on the floor of the Council and in the opinion of more than one writer had an influence on the outcome of that historical council comparable to that of Pope John XXIII. For example, Father D. Campion, who prepared the commentary and explanatory notes for the English language edition of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Vatican II's most important document, wrote, 'Here as elsewhere, it is easy to recognize the compatibility of insights developed by thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin in his Divine Milieu with the fundamental outlook of the Council.'"181 "Teilhard had a tremendous vision of the Church as a community of Christian love, where people live together as individuals, yet united in love-total, unbounded, without limit - within the world; a sign of the presence of God, finally and fully as Love."182 His concept of baptism was simply an initiation into this community. In Teilhard's religion there is no place for the supernatural life of grace which is infused into souls through baptism. For him, union with God consists principally in assimilation into the evolutionary process. The heretical teachings of Teilhard de Chardin have been widely circulated through the seminaries, schools, religious houses, and libraries of the New Church. His teachings represent an apostasy from the Catholic Church. "Fr. de Lubac, S.J., speaking at the Institution on Renewal in the Church said in Toronto in 1967 that clearly 'the Church is facing a grave crisis.' 'Under the name of the 'the new church,' 'the post-Conciliar church' a different church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself."183 Teilhard de Chardin had laid the foundation of this new church.184 VATICAN II AND BAPTISM - ENTRANCE INTO THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND THE ROAD TO ECUMENISM Many of these ideas are reflected in the documents of the Council. For example, in the Decree on Ecumenism, the Council asserts that all the baptized are members of Christ's body. Speaking of the obstacles to unity, it says: "But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the Children of the Catholic faith." (#3) They "have a right to be called Christian"? Why not simply "Catholic"? To be a member of Christ's body means to be a member of His Mystical body, which is the Catholic Church. Apart from His physical body, what other body of Christ is there? And are they correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church"? Why by the "children" and not simply by the "faithful" of the Catholic Church, and therefore as brothers in the Catholic faith. "Let no one deceive you with vain words" (Eph. V, 6). Behind these ambiguities of Vatican II, Protestants are made out to be Catholics. And that, be it noted, without their having either to profess the Catholic faith or submit to the authority of the Church - the other two requirements for membership in the Church, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent makes clear. What then becomes of the Church as a visible society insatituted by Christ; of the faithful united in the same faith and worship, and under the same government? "A city set upon a mountain cannot be hid" (Matt. V, 14). Small wonder that for Vatican II the more nebulous, amorphous "People of God" supercedes the Catholic church as the means of salvation. "So it is that this messianic people, altrhough it does not actually include all men, and may more than once look like a small flock, is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope, and salvation for the whle human race. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #9) Certainly, the Council does not, like Pope Pius XII, identify the Mystical body of Christ with the Catholic Church. While it is true that those validly baptized outside the Catholic Church, whether they be infants or adults in good faith, receive the grace of the sacrament and will be saved by it so long as this grace is not otherwise lost by sin. This is not by reason of their being members of the Church, or as otherwise belonging to its body - the body of the faithful - but as belonging to the soul of the Church; bv their being, as the saying goes, Catholics "at heart." In this way, even those not sacramentally baptized at all can be saved, namely by the Baptism of Desire, or by Baptism of Blood, as the case may be. But only by external profession of the Catholic faith, whether this be public in the case of converts already baptized or by Baptism in the Catholic Church itself, does one actually become a member of the Church, and consequently of the Mystical Body. In the case of those baptized outside the Church, whether Protestants or schismatics, their admission into it - and so into the Mystical Body of Christ - dependes on making profession of the Faith before a Catholic prelate or priest, and submitting to the Church's authority. The Church is not, primarily, the society or body of the baptized but of the faithful. As very clearly stated in Mytici Corporis, "those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit."185 CHANGES IN THE RITE RESULTING FROM VATICAN II The Second Vatican Council mandated changes in the sacraments. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reported that "the Second Vatican Council introduced certain modifications in the very essence of the sacramental rites."186 The Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II ordered that the rite for the baptism of infants and adults be revised.187 The new rite for the baptism of infants was introduced on June 1, 1970. The RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) was issued on January 6, 1972. THE NEW RITE OF BAPTISM Father Dominic Radecki, CMRI THE DIVINE POWER IN BAPTISM Let us consider what is essential for baptism in the light of reason and common sense. How can water flowing over a few inches of a baby's skin cleanse a stain which is on the infant's soul? When Our Lord restored the sight of the blind man, he applied a clay to his eyes and commanded him to wash in the pool of Siloe. He went, he washed, and he saw. Now clearly light did not come to the man's sightless eyes because of water or clay. If such had been the case there would have been no blind men in Judea. His sight was restored not because of the clay or the water but through the divine power of Christ working through the clay and water. It is not the water or the words of baptism but the power of Christ working through these elements that gives grace to the soul and removes original sin. MATTER, FORM, MINISTER AND INTENTION As pointed out in the introduction, the Catholic Church teaches that there are four essential elements in every sacrament: valid matter, valid form, valid minister, and the proper intention of the minister. If any of these is lacking the sacrament is invalid. The matter of a sacrament is some sensible action or thing, i.e., the material element of a sacrament (baptismal water...) The form of a sacrament are the essential words, e.g., "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The minister of the sacrament is the person conferring the sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas taught, "There is required on the part of the minister that intention by which he subjects himself to the principal agent, i.e., intends to do what Christ does and the church."188 THE ESSENTIALS OF BAPTISM A priest or bishop is not required for the valid administration of baptism. "Those who may administer baptism, in case of necessity,... are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry." 189 "The theological reason for the validity of baptism when conferred by a heretical minister is to be sought in the maxim so constantly urged by St. Augustine: 'It is Christ who baptizes.'"190 However, if the person who is baptizing does not intend to do what Christ and the Church does, the baptism is invalid. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that "Baptism is valid if conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of the sacrament, but interiorly in his heart says: I do not intend to do what the Church does."191 In the post-Conciliar "Rite of Christian Initiation" (replacing the traditional rite of Baptism) the emphasis is almost exclusively placed on the recipient's entrance into the Community of the people of God. The document is replete with phrases such as "through the sacraments of Christian initiation men and women are freed from the power of darkness" and "made God's sons and daughters with the entire people of God." Again, "baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." There is throughout its 50 pages only a single passing reference to original sin.192 With so much stress laid on entrance into the Community of the people of God, one can seriously question whether the power to remit original sin even enters into the mind of the officiating minister. If the intention to do what the Church does is vitiated, the rite becomes invalid. It will be argued by some that despite the numerous changes (additions, deletions, etc.) in the new rite the essential words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" have been retained. Does this assure the validity of the new rite? Since the Second Vatican Council, many of the clergy have felt free to "experiment" with the manner in which they administer the sacraments. Clearly, if the proper words of the form are not used, no baptism occurs. Others have changed the essential ceremony, for example, changing the manner in which water is administered. With regard to this consider the words of Archbishop Francis Kenrick: "Where no water is applied, it is absurd to suppose baptism: where the application of the water is scanty and careless, as when a few drops are sprinkled towards the person, or the moist finger is slightly pressed on the forehead, there is great reason to fear that there is no baptism. Where the words are preceded by others, which modify or change their meaning, or where they are not morally connected with the ablution (application of water), being uttered before or after it at a considerable interval, the baptism is doubtful, if not null."193 These and other defects have rendered many baptisms doubtful and others certainly invalid. However, the greatest threat to the validity of baptism in the New Church comes from a possible defective intention on the part of the minister. Many of the post-Conciliar clergy have accepted the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin. Some openly proclaim their disbelief in the traditional teachings of the Church and the purpose of baptism as established by Christ. That Baptism is what allows for any person - regardless of what sect he adhers to - to enter the Christian community, clearly implies that Christ did not establish a visible Church. To further compound the situation, such individuals frequently believe Christ was nothing other than a "good" man. For such individuals the regenerative power of baptism (the removal of original sin) is considered unimportant or irrelevant. How is it possible for such individuals to have the proper intention? MORE ON THE INTENTION OF THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM The erroneous teachings of Teilhard de Chardin regarding original sin have been assimilated and adopted by some priests. This has caused many to have false views and beliefs on baptism. Can they validly administer baptism? The Church teaches that even heretics can baptize validly if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use the right matter and form in administering it. "The validity of baptism does not depend on the minister or the kind of person he may be, but on the fact that, wishing to administer the baptism of Christ, he uses the correct rite. "194 St. Augustine said that anyone who follows the rite instituted by Christ administers baptism validly.195 "After the Fathers, this question was gradually developed, and by the time of St. Thomas it was universally held by theologians that anyone, man or woman, baptized or unbaptized, could validly baptize. It must, of course, be clearly understood that a right intention, that is, an intention of doing what the Church of Christ does, is always necessary for the validity of the sacrament."196 Baptism administered by a non-Catholic is valid if he uses the correct rite and intends to administer the baptism of Christ. The baptism is valid because of the principle of simple error. The Church makes a distinction between the belief in a person's mind and the intent in his will. In other words, a person who administers baptism may have false beliefs in his mind about the nature, effects, and efficacy of baptism. However, as long as his will intends to perform the baptism of Christ, the sacrament is valid. In the example above, simple error may be in the mind of the person because he has a poor or even erroneous understanding of baptism. Yet, as long as he does not have an actual intention in his will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the baptism is valid. If the person who administers baptism by a special act of his will does not intend to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, the sacrament would be invalid. The principle of simple error must be clearly understood. "Error is a false judgment of the mind. The error is simple if it remains in the mind without passing over into the will, and so without modifying the act which the will elicits."197 Theologians make a distinction between the error in the mind and the intention in the will. The topic of the minister's intention in baptism was covered in an article in the American Ecclesiastical Review. I will quote several passages from this article. The principle of simple error will help one to understand the reasoning of theologians on this subject. Ulric Beste begins by listing the essential elements of a sacrament. "It is then certain and admitted by all that, besides the matter and form prescribed by Christ, also the proper intention on the part of the minister is required for validity in the administration of baptism. However, as is commonly taught by theologians, this intention need not necessarily be explicit or express, nor determinate and distinct or well-defined.; it is quite sufficient that it exist confusedly and implicitly in the mind of the minister." "Indeed, no more is necessary than that he intends to perform what the Church performs, or what Christ instituted and ordered to be done, or what he ordinarily sees pastors or Christians do in their churches. This remains true although interiorly in his heart and mind he feels and is convinced that this is a vain and meaningless ceremony and that the Church in performing it certainly errs and posits a purely inefficacious act. This conclusion is evident from the practice of the Church, for she will not order or allow rebaptism for the sole and simple reason that a Jew or Saracen, pagan or heretic, who frequently know little or nothing about the purpose and powers of baptism, administered the sacrament, provided of course the duly requisite matter and form were employed."198 The principle of simple error is now used in reference to the minister of baptism. "Error and mistaken notions about baptism, holding it to be but an external sign of aggregation without any effect upon the soul, even when systematically taught as a tenet of a sect and obstinately declared by a minister immediately before the act of baptizing (whether as part of the ceremonial of baptism or not), do not yet destroy the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ instituted; his general intention prevails over and, as it were, absorbs the private or qualified mental attitude of the minister towards baptism due to false doctrines and heretical ideas; error can coexist with a right intention."199 "The reason is that the minister's general intention to do what Christ instituted predominates and absorbs false ideas and opinions. Error is rooted in the intellect, while intention is an act of the will. The Sacred Congregation does not tire to repeat and insist in its pronouncements that error about the effect of a sacrament does not make it impossible for a minister to have the necessary intention to perform what Christ has instituted."200 The Code of Canon Law applies this same principle to marriage cases. Canon 1084 describes simple error regarding the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage in these terms: "'In order that such error may vitiate the consent, it must be transferred to and made part of the intention by a positive act of the will, as is stated explicitly in canon 1086, section 2,' But if either party or both parties by a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, or all rights to the conjugal act, or any essential property of marriage, he contracts invalidly.'"201 Let us apply this principle now to baptism. "Analogously in baptism false notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy, and effects of the sacrament are compatible with the minister's true and sincere intention of doing what the true Church does or what Christ has instituted."202 Let us examine this principle in the intention of the minister of baptism. The will embraces its object as represented by the mind. False notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy and effects of the sacrament may remain in the mind. This simple error of the mind is compatible with the proper intention in the will. As long as the minister of baptism does not have an actual prevailing intention in his will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the sacrament is valid. If the minister of the sacrament of baptism by a special act of the will elicits a contrary intention to the general intention to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, the sacrament would be invalid. Therefore, in the face of an actual prevailing intention to the contrary to what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, this general intention would be nullified and destroyed. The decisions and pronouncements of the church make this principle stand out clearly. "At one time in France a dispute had arisen whether those baptized by the Calvinists should be rebaptized. St. Pius V settled the controversy by defining that baptism was not to be repeated. It should be noted that the Calvinists, like our sects, denied baptism to have any efficacy to regenerate. Yet the instruction makes it clear that erroneous views in the minister 'circa intelligentiam formae vel aliquem effectum' do not render the sacrament invalid, provided the right matter and form instituted by Christ were used with the general intention to perform what Christ instituted; that this general intention prevails over the particular error or wrong private interpretation. Error and heretical opinion about the nature and effects of baptism can therefore coexist with a sincere intention of doing what Christ did or had instituted."203 "It is possible, of course, that a minister carry his heretical ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing the words of the essential form in baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy. But to bring that about the must elicit a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential rite of baptism." "False views and beliefs based upon the heretical opinions and teachings, changes and alterations, even when systematically introduced or manifested in the ceremonial parts of the ritual, written or unwritten, do not constitute a sufficient indication and proof that the minister, even when pronouncing the essential form accurately and completely, has a heretical intention so tainted by error as to vitiate the sacrament essentially." "For so long as that heretical error as regards baptism manifests itself in the ceremonial portion of the ritual only; so long as the sect holds that material rite of baptism to be an institution of Christ; so long as in the administration of the sacrament, the scriptural form, handed down by Christ and observed constantly in the Church, is seriously and scrupulously adhered to; in short, so long as the sect and its ministers think that they are performing and repeating that rite of Christ, the Church justly and reasonably presumes and must presume that they want to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the true Church does, whatever the minister in a particular case may think about the true nature, necessity and efficacy of the sacrament."204 CONCLUSION For a valid sacrament one must have valid matter, form, intention, and minister. Prior to Vatican II one could assume that a priest had the proper intention when he confected a sacrament. He was well instructed in the seminary in regard to the proper intention for each sacrament. Also, the rite, (i.e., the particular prayers of the Church for each sacrament) sets the proper intention for the priest. The teachings of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin have been condemned by the Catholic Church. Many priests since Vatican II have followed these errors. A simple error in the mind of the minister does not invalidate a sacrament as long as he intends to administer the sacrament of Christ. In some cases, the person who administers a sacrament not only has a simple error in his mind, but his will positively intends to perform a rite contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church. He invalidates the sacrament. Priests who follow the teachings of Teilhard do validly baptize if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use the proper matter and form. However, baptism administered by these priests is invalid if they have an intention in their will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church. The sacrament is invalid if the minister of baptism elicits a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential rite of baptism. He carries his heretical ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing the words of the essential form in baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy. Archbishop Kenrick says that a simple error of the mind may lead to a perversion of the will resulting in a defective intention and an invalid baptism. "The belief in its efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: yet may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes (my emphasis), that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ our Lord?"205 Could this quotation of Archbishop Kenrick be applied to Chardinian- minded ministers? In summary, since Vatican II many sacraments have been rendered invalid due to a defect in matter, form, minister and intention. A minister of baptism who accepts the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin in regard to original sin has at least a simple error of the mind. If his will has an intention contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church when administering baptism, the sacrament is invalid. Priests who follow the teachings of Vatican II do validly baptize if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use proper matter and form. PRACTICAL APPLICATION Father Halligan gives some practical guidelines for the investigation of baptism. "It is absolutely necessary to determine if de facto baptism has already taken place and, if so, whether it was a valid administration. No preconceived notions or presumptions that all non- Catholic baptisms are invalid or doubtfully valid suffice.206 Dogmatic errors do not of themselves make baptism by non-Catholic ministers invalid.207 Each case must be carefully considered to provide for the salvation of the soul and to guard against irreverence to the sacrament through a useless administration. Only moral impossibility excuses from such investigation. If nothing can be ascertained about the baptism, at least conditional baptism is necessary."208 Therefore, in receiving those who have been baptized with the new rite of Christian Initiation the priest must investigate each case. If the inquiry reveals that baptism was conferred invalidly the sacrament is to be administered absolutely. The sacrament should be administered conditionally if the point of validity or invalidity remains doubtful. "Conditional baptism is given when it is uncertain whether a person has been baptized, or when there is fear of the sacrament having been administered improperly."209 Father Davis writes: "Whenever a prudent doubt based on probable reasons persists regarding the validity of a sacrament bestowed, that sacrament may be repeated."210 Baptism is of its nature absolutely necessary for salvation. "The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done where its validity is doubted - or rather, so long as its validity is not morally certain."211 CHAPTER VII - MARRIAGE It is virtually impossible to invalidate the Sacrament of Marriage providing the partners involved have the correct intention. This is because, as the Council of Florence declared, "the efficient cause of Matrimony (i.e., as a Sacrament) invariably is the mutual consent expressed by words in the present tense." "Pius IX taught that "among Christians there can be no marriage [correct intention assumed] which is not at the same time a Sacrament... and consequently the Sacrament can never be separated from the marital contract" (Allocution, Sept. 27, 1852). According to Pohle-Preuss, Bellarmine, Suarez, Sanchez and other theologians of equal stature, "both the matter and form of the Sacrament are contained in the marital contract itself; being the words of consent spoken by the contracting parties, or the signs used. The words or signs constitute the matter of the Sacrament in so far as they signify the mutual surrender of the bodies (tradition), and its form in so far as they signify the acceptance (acceptio) of the same."212 To simplify the issue, one can state that the mutual consent of the contracting parties to give themselves to each other (the contract) is the matter of the Sacrament, and the giving of consent in the present tense, the form. This is consistent with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that "the words in which the matrimonial consent is expressed constitute the form of this Sacrament; not the sacerdotal blessing, which is a sort of sacramental."213 (The Contract as such is not distinguishable from the words of consent.) What then is the role of the priest? According to Phole Preuss, "the contracting parties to a marriage administer the Sacrament to each other. The priest is merely the minister of the (accidental) celebration and the representative and chief official witness of the Church. This explains why his presence is required by ecclesiastical law. The conditions for validity are four. The recipients must be baptized, they must be of different sexes, there must be no diriment impediment in the way of their marriage (such as previous valid marriage) and they must have the intention of doing what the Church does - i.e. of contracting a Christian marriage. (Normally, a marriage must be solemnized before a priest - however, if no priest is available and is unlikely to be available for a long period of time (as occurs for example in certain parts of Mexico), the marriage can occur without him, though it must be solemnized by a priest when one becomes available.) Proper intention is of course required on the part of the recipients of this Sacrament. That intention may be implicit, but the contrary intention should not be present. A valid marriage contract must be "till death do us part," must consider the primary purpose of marriage to be the procreation of children and their education in the faith.214 POST-CONCILIAR MARRIAGE Space does not allow for a full consideration of the new catechesis on the nature of marriage. Two fundamental principles however have been abrogated and each of them of sufficient importance to possibly vitiate the marriage contract and thus the exclude the sacramental nature of the union. Moreover, the post-Conciliar minister (president, priest?) must inform the persons about to be married both before the ceremony and during the ceremony of these changes.215 1) THE HIERACHICAL NATURE OF MARRIAGE It is clear from Ephesians V that marriage is a hierarchical structure. Paul explicitly taught that the partners in marriage should be subject to one another, in the fear of Christ." He further taught "Let women be subject to their husbands, as tp the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is head of the Church... as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."216 This principle is repeated in innumerable places in both the Old and New Testaments; it is concurred with by Peter who says "in like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands" (1 Pet. III:1). Likewise, this principle has been repeatedly confirmed by the popes. Pope Pius XI considered the submission of women to man as a fundamental law of the family, established and fixed by God. Pope Pius XII specified that "to reeestablish an hierarchy within the family, something indispensable to its unity as well a to its happiness, to grandeur, this was one of Christianity's greatest undertakings, since that day when Christ proclaimed, before the pharisees and the people, 'what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'" The teaching of the new Rome is first seen in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (declared by Paul VI to the the supreme form of the ordinary magisterium): "just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our saviour, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Marriage. He abides with them in order that by their mutual self-giving, spouses will love each other with enduring fidelity, as he loved the Church and delivered himself for it." Here the teaching of Ephesians has been decisively abridged. Only what is agreeable has been taken from it, namely "love." The subordination of women and, correlatively, that of the Church to her Head, is simply disregarded. Drawing on this statement the Synod of Wurzburg declared in 1975 that the husband and wife were to be seen as partners, and that "the allotment of roles between husband and wife, which was strongly patriarchal in character, has been corrected." This is also the teaching of John Paul II who holds that love creates equality. In his Apostolic Letter Familiaris consortio issued in 1981 he teaches that "above all it is important to underline the equal dignity and responsibility of women and men... in creating the human race 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity, endowing them with the inalienable rights and responsibilities proper to the human person." The same "responsibilities" for man and woman exclude man from being the head of the family. This was made even more explicit in the Charter of Family Rights promulgated by Rome in 1983 where it states that "the husband and wife have the same dignity and the same rights with respect to their marriage." Again, in a statement published in "l'Osservatore Romano, John Paul II explains away the Paulist injunction on the grounds that "the author [Paul] does not hesitate to accept those ideas which were proper to the contemporary mentality and to its forms of expression... Our sentiments are certainly different today, different also are our mentality and customs, and finally, different is a woman's social position vis-a-vis the man."217 All this is a far cry from the statement of the German bishops in 1953 to the effect that: "Anyone who, as a matter of principle, denies the responsibility of the husband and father as head of the woman and of the family, puts himself in opposition to the Gospel and the doctrine of the Church."218 2) VATICAN II CHANGES A DE FIDE TEACHING ON MARRIAGE The second significant change in the theology of marriage pertains to the two ends of marriage. The traditional Church taught de fide that: "The primary end of Marriage is the procreation and education of offspring, while its secondary purposes are mutual help and the allaying (also translated "as a remedy for") concupiscence. The latter are entirely subordinate to the former." Now in saying that this teaching is de fide,219 one is saying that Catholics must believe this to be true. Vatican II however places the Catholic couple in an untenable position because it teaches, with equal authority, that the two ends of marriage are equal, and further lists the secondary end before the primary one.220 With the traditional teaching couples whose love for any reason had grown cold, still stayed together for the sake of the children. Now, should the first listed reason for marriage no longer persist, divorce or separation is justified. No longer does the procreation and education of children come first. And to further facilitate the possibility of divorce, one of the new and post-Conciliar indications allowed by the Rota (marriage court) is "psychological immaturity." Needless to say, it is only the saint who is not psychologically immature. What are the consequences of entering marriage with the understanding (or misunderstanding) about the hierarchical nature of this state of life - to say nothing of the perversion of its purpose? Without presuming to speak in absolute terms, let us consider the opinion of Father Klaus Moersdorf, a theologian and expert in Canon law. It is his opinion that the hierarchical relationship between man and woman is fraught with a crucial importance for marriage. According to him, this idea corresponds to the previously mentioned teachings of the popes... A marriage is realized through the uniformity of the will of both people. Both parties of the marriage have to be in agreement in order to affirm "the essential content of the marriage contract, which is to say the one who wishes to comclude a marriage must be ready to accept three characteristics of marriage. These are: the right to the body, the indissolubility of marriage and the unity of marriage." The unity of marriage signifies, according to Father Moersdorf, the union of one man with one woman, and therefore a single couple (monogomy), and that the man and the woman be united in a hierarchical order by a holy unity. According to this author, for the realization of a valid marriage, it is indispensable that the contracting parties recognize and fulfill these three conditions. "If the necessary understanding and will for the conclusion of a marriage are seriously lacking, the marriage will not be valid." Consequently, it is to be feared that if a marriage is concluded in the spirit of a partnership, and if at least one of the parties rejects the superiority of the man, that marriage is not validly concluded. That means that such partners live together without being united by the marriage bond and without receiving the graces which the sacrament of marriage effects." Dr. Seibel, a professor of sociology and a theologian of some repute states that "a marriage, deprived of its head, is 'decapitated' in the true sense of the word, which is to say that it is 'dead.' At any rate, a marriage which is strictly a partnership can in no case be considered as a Christian marriage."221 Following upon the conclusion, an essay on the nature of Catholic Marriage is offered as an Appendix. CONCLUSION The Sacraments are of critical importance to the spiritual life of Catholics. They were instituted by Christ as means of grace, and their integrity is independent of man's innovative needs. "Lord, by Your divine sacraments you renew the world. Let your Church draw benefit from Your sacred rites, and do not leave her without temporal aids either. This we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Collect for Matins, Friday, Fourth Week in Lent). There is no doubt but that the post-Conciliar Church has played fast and loose with the Sacraments. Whether or not the result has rendered some of them invalid is for the reader to try to figure out. Similarly, and what in the practical order amounts to the same thing, is the question as to whether or not they have been rendered doubtful. If either is the case, their usage is sacrilegious and to be avoided. All these changes have been carried out for two basic reasons - aggiornamento and ecumenism. Both reasons are intrinsically absurd and damaging to the Faith. There has never been a need for the revealed teachings of Christ to adapt themselves to the modern or any other world. The very concept denies the intrinsic nature of Catholic truth which is why it has always been necessary for the world to adapt itself to the teachings of Christ. Proof of the invalidity of this principle is provided by the fact that Christ made no attempt to adapt His teachings to the Jews or the Romans of his era; and that it was necessary for the Prodigal Son to return to the bosom of his father. As for the motivation of ecumenism, one can make but three comments. First: the very exclusive nature of Catholicism militates against ecumenism. Christ did not die on the Cross so that mankind could choose its own religious views. Secondly, ecumenism inevitably requires the watering down of Christian teaching, for it is only the lowest common denominator that can bring all our "separated brethren" into that false unity of "the people of God" which is desired. And Lastly, the very idea of ecumenism implies tolerence to error. It has never been necessary to be tolerent to the truth, and charity to error (as opposed to individuals who are in error) has never been a characteristic of the Catholic Faith. By their fruits ye shall know them. We have now had some 35 years of the post-Conciliar establishment with her new sacramental forms. Clearly by every possible criteria imaginable, the results have been disastrous. The changes introduced by the documents of Vatican II would have all but been ignored if not implemented through the media of the sacraments - for indeed the lex credendi is reflected in the lex orandi - our beliefs are reflected in the manner in which we pray. This if nothing else should raise doubts in the minds of the faithful, not only about the sacramental changes, but also about the principles that inspired them. There are those who will feel that these criticisms have been picky. What after all does a word here or there mean? One can only answer that words indeed do have meaning, or if not, then why have the sacraments at all. Despite the claims of modernists, the sacraments are not "rites of passage." Consider the words of Pope Leo XIII with regard to doctrine: "Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt WITH A SINGLE WORD, like a drop of poison, the purity and simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles." If such could be said of doctrine, how much more can it be said of the Sacraments? Many will argue that obedience requires our acceptance of these changes. But consider the teaching of Suarez: "[a Pope] also falls into Schism if he himself departs from the body of the Church by refusing to be in communion with her by participating in the sacraments... The Pope can become schismatic in this manner if he does not wish to be in proper communion with the body of the Church [i.e., the Church as she has always existed], a situation which would arise if he tried to excommunicate the entire Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquenada observe, IF HE WISHED TO CHANGE ALL THE ECCLESIASTICAL CEREMONIES, FOUNDED AS THEY ARE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION." This clearly raises the question of authority. Do the post-Conciliar "popes" have the authority to introduce these changes which are by their own admission "innovations," and reflective of a "new ecclesiology." Such a question cannot be answered within the framework of the present study, but it is one which every person who has doubts about the validity of the new sacraments must ask and eventually resolve. What is clear however is that traditional Catholics who have doubts about the validity of the new sacramental forms, have every right to avoid them in practice, and to seek out and demand unquestionably valid sacraments. This issue is at the heart of the Catholic resistance. IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BLOOD A CATHOLIC TEACHING? "Let not the son of the stranger, that adhereth to the Lord, speak, saying the Lord will divide and separate me from his people... For thus saith the Lord... they that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that plase me, and shall hold fast my covenent: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish." Isiah, 56.3 "it is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith." Romans 3:30 The continued debate among traditionally minded Catholic groups with regard to Baptism of Desire and Baptismp of Blood can only be resolved by examining the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages. With this in view, the various arguments, which bear on this matter will be reviewed in a semi-historical sequence. Melchior Cano has pointed to the ten sources or locis theologicis from which Catholic doctrine can be determined. He lists among these: 1) Holy Scripture 2) Oral Tradition 3) The Authority of the Catholic Church 4) The Authority of the Councils 5) The Authority of the Roman Church 6) The Authority of the Holy Fathers 7) The Authority of the Scholastic Theologians 8) The worthiness of natural reason 9) The Authority of the philosophers 10) The Authority of History. It will be seen in what follows that we have documented the Church's teaching on the issue of Baptism of Desire from all but the 4th and 9th of these loci. In a certain sense one can state that the issue is outside the realm of philosophy. That the Councils have not addressed the issue is understandable if one considers the fact that issues raised in the Councils were always relative to matters in dispute. The validity of Baptism of Desire has, before the present century, never been in doubt. It should be clear that many of the examples we point to fall within the province of "the ordinary and universal magisterium" of the Church. Theologians have spoken of the triple form of baptism - namely water, desire and blood. St. Paul in Hebrews 6:2 speaks of the doctrines of baptism in the plural (doctrinae baptismatum), implying the possibility of more than one form - the sacrament of course being one by its nature as in "one faith, one baptism."222 And indeed, Scripture provides us with examples in both the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament we have the example of Job who was "from the North Country," and not a Jew. In the New Testament we have the slaughter of the innocents, and later the case of the Centurian as in Matthew 8:1-13. Scripture also tells us that the good thief went to heaven, despite the fact that he was not baptized with water. However, those who argue on the absolute need of baptism by water will respond by noting that the Church was not officially "founded" till the day of Pentecost - and that hence baptism by water only became a requirement subsequent to that time. In support of this position they will quote Matt. xxviii, 19 where Christ says "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This opinion is not grounded on any teaching of the Church. In point of fact, this statement was made before Pentecost - though after the Resurrection. And further, the argument forgets that Christ told Nicodemus, prior to His Crucifixion, that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.223 Also pertinent is the teaching of St. Paul with regard to Circumcision, which he likened to Baptism. In Romans 2:25-27 he teaches: "Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. If, then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?" Granting for the sake of argument that these Scriptural examples fail to close the debate, let us look to the constant practice and teaching of the Church for further clarification. TERTULLIAN: Born in the year 160 and writing about the year 200, this author, despite his later defection to Montanism, is usually considered as a "Church Father" and certainly one of the earliest exponents of orthodox Catholic doctrine. The following passage is taken from his writings under the section de baptismo in the Enchiridion Patristicum: "In truth we also have a second laver which is the same as the first, namely that of blood, concerning which Our Lord said, "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized' (Luke 12:50) after He had already been baptized; for He came by water and blood as John wrote, that He might be baptized by water and glorified by blood, likewise too that He might make us called by water and chosen by blood; He poured forth these two baptisms from the wound dug in His side so that those who believed in His blood might be cleansed by water and those who were cleansed by water might bear His blood; this is the baptism which takes the place of the laver which has not been received and restores what was lost." (emphasis mine) ST ALBAN AND HIS FELLOW MARTYR: The Venerable Bede tells us in the Ecclesiastical History of the Church of the English Nation tells us the story of an early English Martyr. The story is well summarized by Dom Gueranger (who St. Theresa of Lisieaux considered to be a saint) in his Liturgical Year: "When the mandates of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian were raging against the Christians, Alban, as yet a pagan, received into his house a certain priest fleeing from persecution. Now, when he [Alban] beheld how this priest persevered day and night in constant watching and prayer, he was suddenly touched by divine grace, so that he was fain to imitate the example of his faith and piety; and being instructed by degrees, through his salutary exhortations, forsaking the darkness of idolatry, he with his whole heart became a Christian." "The persecutors, being in search of this cleric, came to Alban's house, whereupon, disguised in the cleric's apparel - namely, in the caracalla - he presented himself to the soldiers in the place of his master and guest; by them he was bound with things, and led off to the judge. This latter finding himself thus deceived, ordered that the holy confessor of God should be beaten by the executioners; and, perceiving at last that he could neither overcome him by torments, nor win him over from the worship of the Christian religion, he commanded his head to be struck off." "Alban having reached the brow of the neighboring hill, the executioner who was to dispatch him, admonished by a divine inspiration, casting away his sword, threw himself at the saint's feet, desiring to die either with the martyr, or instead of him. Alban, being at once beheaded, received the crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him." "The soldier who had refused to strike him, was likewise beheaded: concerning whom it is quite certain that, albeit he was not washed in the baptismal font, still was he made clean in the laver of his own blood and so made worthy of entering into the kingdom of heaven. Alban suffered at Verulam, on the tenths of the Kalends of July. And the judge, astonished at the novelty of so many heavenly miracles, ordered the persecution to cease immediately, beginning to honor the death of the saints [only St. Alban and the soldier had been executed], by which [death] he had before thought that they might be diverted from the Christian faith." As Martin Gwynne points out, this last paragraph is taken verbatum from the writings of Bede, and Bede is a Doctor of the Church. Moreover, St. Alban, who died on June 22 in the year 303, is considered to be the proto-martyr of the English Church.224 SAINT EMERENTIANA: Those familiar with the traditional Breviary (dropped from the Novus Ordo "missals") will know the story of this virgin and martyr. The idea that the Church would have her religious commemorate such a person who was - according to those who deny Baptism of Desire and Blood - on a yearly basis for some 1800 years - is to say the least "offensive to pious ears." Let us quote the Breviary directly: "Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God." This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands. Some have argued that she was baptized - but such is absurd as she is both called a catechumen, and the Church states in her liturgy that she was "baptized in her own blood."225 Yet another example, enshrined in the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of ST. RESPICIUS. "During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and toggether with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurredboth were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom." ST AMBROSE, another doctor of the Church, provides us with the fourth example. He has the following to say with regard to the death of Valentinian II, who was murdered at Vienne in the year 371. Valentinian II was the son of the Emperor Valintinian I, Emperor of the West, and his second wife Justina. Valintinian I and Justina had been displaced by Mangus Maximus, and had sought support from the Arian Theodosius, who was Emperor of the East. As a result Valentinian II for many years he sat on the fence and tried to bring about a compromise in the arguments between the Arians and the Orthodox. In this he was opposed by St. Ambrose. When his mother died, Valentinian II abandoned Arianism, became a catechumen, and invited St. Ambrose to come to Gaul and administer baptism to him. He was however assassinated before this could happen and his body was brought to Milan where the saint delivered his funeral oration "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio" which dwelt on the efficacy of baptism of desire. The following is extracted from this oration: "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it. Whence it is written, 'The just man, by whatsoever death he shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest'(Wisdom, 4:7)."226 ST. AUGUSTINE, another doctor of the Church has also spoken to this issue. In his City of God he makes his position more than clear. "Those also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration are released thereby from their sins just as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He who said, 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' (John 3:5) by another statement made exceptions to this when He said no less comprehensively: 'Everyone... that shall confess me before men, I will confess before my Father who is in Heaven.' (Matthew 10:32)." Lest anyone claim that this was an isolated opinion of Augustine's, we also give the following drawn his de baptismo and found in the Enchiridion Patristicum, a source which provides Catholic Scholars with approved texts on doctrinal issues (paragraph 1629).227 "I do not doubt that a Catholic catechumen, burning with Divine charity, is superior to a baptized heretic. But even inside the Catholic Church we consider a good catechumen better than a bad man who has been baptized; and for this reason we do no injury to the sacrament ob baptism, which the one has not yet received and the other has, nor do we consider the sacrament of the catechumen superior to the sacrament of baptism by considering a particular catechumen more faithful and better than a particular person who has been baptized. For the centurion Cornelius was better when he was not yet baptized than was Simon [Magus] after he had been baptized. for the former was filled with the Holy Ghost even before baptism, while the latter was full of the evil spirit even after baptism... "That the place of baptism can sometimes assuredly be taken by suffering, the blessed Cyprian takes as no mean proof the words addressed to the thief who was not baptized: 'This day thou shalt be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43). In considering which again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply that which was lacking in respect of baptism [id quod ex baptismo deerat], but also faith and conversion of heart if perchance in straitened times it is impossible to arrange for the celebration of the mystery of baptism." Since reference to ST. CYPRIAN (martyred in the year 257) has been made by St. Augustine, it seems appropriate to quote him directly. Again, we use as our source the Enchiridion Patristicum (paragraph 1328): "Some people, as if by human argument they could rob of its truth the teaching of the Gospel, present us with the case of catechumens, demanding whether, if one of these, before he was baptized in the church, were captured and killed in the confession of his belief, he would forfeit his hope of salvation and the reward of his confession because he had not previously been born again by water. Men of this kind, who laud and abet heretics, are well aware that those catechumens who first hold inviolate the faith and truth of the Church and advance, with full and sincere knowledge of God the Father and Christ and the Holy Ghost, to fight off the devil from the Divine battlements are certainly not thereupon deprived of the sacrament of baptism seeing that they have been baptized with the greatest and most glorious baptism of blood, concerning which Our Lord said that He had another baptism wherewith to be baptized (Luke 12:50). The same Lord, however, affirms in the gospel that those who are baptized by their own blood and sanctified by their sufferings, are consummated and receive the grace of the Divine promise. This is implied by His words when he spoke to the thief who believed in and confessed His passion, promising that he would be with him in paradise." At this point we will return to examples taken from history - specifically drawing on the Bollandists who are the official hagioraphers of the Church. We take two examples drawn from Les Petits Bollandistes:228 The first is the story of the brother martyrs SAINTS DONATIEN AND ROGATIEN, who were martyred during the reign of Maximien about the year 287 and who are the patron saints of the city of Nantes in France. "There was a young man in Nantes called Donatien. Born into an illustrious family, he was even more illustrious for his faith.... He had received baptism, and fortifies by the holy mysteries, he publicly proclaimed the triumph of Jesus Christ and spread the divine wheat that had been so fruitful in him own heart, in the hearts of the Gentiles around him." "He gained his elder brother Rogatien who was still an idolator to the Christian faith at a time of great peril, for it was a period when the profession of Christianity was proscribed. But such considerations did not deter Rogatien from adhering to the truth and committing himself to following Jesus Christ, even unto death. In order to have the strength to undertake this dangerous combat, he sought out the sacrament of baptism with great ardor, but in the absence of a priest (sacerdotis absentia fugitiva) - for the priests had been forced to flee the land - he could only be baptized in his own blood. Rogatien and his brother were placed in the same goal and Rogatien had only one sorrow - that he had not receive baptism. Continuing the story as provided by the Bollandists: "But the faith which he had in God led him to hope that the kiss of his brother would take the place of the sacred bath [baptism]. Donatien, informed of the sorrow of his brother, made the following prayer to God: 'Lord Jesus Christ, with whom desires have the same merit as works, when it is absolutely impossible to fulfill the wishes of someone who is completely devoted to you, as is the case with your servant Rogatien, grant if the judge persists in his obstinacy, that his pure faith may take the place of baptism, and that his blood may become the sacred oils." The following morning both brothers were slain, and "Donatien, having gained his brother to Jesus Christ, had the consolation of seeing him respond with dignity to the graces of his vocation; Rogatien, baptized in his own blood, showed himself in no way inferior to his brother, and the two achieved an illustrious victory and were united in the happy flock that is never to be separated from the immortal Lamb, the author and consummator of their beatitude." There are many churches in the districts around Nantes dedicated to these two saints. There is yet another saint that the Bollandists tell us of - ST VICTOR OF BRAGA in Portugal - a saint who is commemorated in the Breviary on April 11. According to our source, "St. Victor of Braga, was as yet only a catechumen when he refused to adore an idol and confessed with great courage his belief in Jesus Christ. He was decapitated after many tortures and thus had the good fortune to be baptized in his own blood - this about the year 300 during the reign of Diocletian." Returning once again to the doctors of the Church, we find the following statement in the writings of ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM who died in the year 386. "If anyone does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation, excepting only martyrs who gain the kingdom even without water."229 ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN who according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), is one of the greatest theologians of the Church has the following to say about Baptism: "I now also that there is a fourth kind of baptism [i.e., apart from the baptism of Moses, of John, and of Jesus], namely that which is acquired by martyrdom and blood, by which Christ Himself was also baptized, and which indeed is nobler than the others, because it is contaminated by no subsequent defilements."230 Yet another authority is that of ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOME, (died 407) who the Catholic Encyclopedia (1980) describes as generally considered "the most prominent doctor in the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in the Christian pulpit" makes the following statement in his Panegyric on St. Lucianus: "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood." Yet another authority is that of ST. FULGENTIUS who died in the early part of the sixth century: "From the time when Our Saviour said 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' without the sacrament of baptism, apart from those who pour forth their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church without baptism, no one can receive the kingdom of Heaven, nor eternal life."231 It might seem that most of our examples are taken from the lives of the martyrs and that hence we only defend a baptism of blood and not one of desire. However, in the practical order, one who desires baptism and is not martyred or assassinated, usually is in no way impeded from obtaining it. Thus it is that the desire for baptism is almost always demonstrated and proven only by the complimentary baptism of blood - and indeed, the theologians almost always discuss them together. Let us demonstrate this by turning to ST. THOMAS AQUINAS whose authoritative teaching few will debate.: Summa, Part III, Question 66, Eleventh Article "As stated in question 62, fifth article, baptism of water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. consequently, a man may, without baptism of water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): 'these are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.' In like manner a man receives the effect of baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without baptism of water, but also without baptism of blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called the baptism of repentance. Of this it is written (Isaias 4:4): 'If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgement, and by the spirit of burning.' Thus, therefore, each of these other baptisms is called baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of baptism." St. Thomas completes this article by quoting the passage from St. Augustine we have ourselves quoted above. He then moves on to the next question (66): "Augustine [Ad Fortunatum], speaking of the comparison between baptisms says: 'the newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest; the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost.'" "As stated above (article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the baptism of water. Now the baptism of water derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, as already stated. These two causes act in each of these three baptisms; most excellently, however, in the baptism of blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the baptism of water by way of desire; but in the baptism of blood by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the baptism of water through a certain hidden power; in the baptism of repentance by moving the heart; but in the baptism of blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13 'Greater love then this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends.'" ST. THOMAS AQUINAS discusses the matter again in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (section 444): "Two questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is born again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water (because they were not baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of God. Secondly, since baptism is of three kinds, that is, of water, of deire and of blood, and many have been baptized in the latter two ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even though they were not born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.The answer to the first is that rebirth or regeneration from water and the holy spirit takes place in two ways: in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not reborn with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because they always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured. So according to this, thus reborn, they did enter the kingdom of God, after the ransom was paid. The answer to the second is that those who are reborn tlby a baptism of blood and fire, although they do not have regeneration in deed, they do have it in desire. Otherwise neither would the baptism of blood mean anything nor could there be a baptism of the Spirit. Consequently, in order than man may enter the kingdom of heaven, it is necessary that there baptism of water in deed, as is the case of all baptized persons, or in desire, as in the case of the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfilling their desire, or in symbol as in the case of the fathers of old."232 PETER LOMBARD, the master of the sentences, also held this doctrine. To quote him directly: "With regard to this issue it should be noted that Our Lord said in John 3 that 'unless a person be reborn of water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Now this is generally true... it it is to be understood of those who are capable of receiving but despise baptism. For them, apart from baptism by water and the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. But this same regeneration can be achieved, not only by baptism of water, but also by rependence [and hence desire] and by blood. Hence it follows that many apostolic authorities teach that baptism can be of water, repentence or blood... and this is only reasonable... Whence Augustine asks: which is greater, faith or water? Unquestionably everyone would respond faith. Therefore, iuf what is the lesser can sanctify, why cannot the greater, namely faith, with regard to which Christ said, ' He who believes in me, even though he should die, livith.'" Lib IV, De Sacramentis. Again, ST. BONAVENTUR teaches that: "there are three distinct forms of Baptism, namely that of fire, that of water and that of blood. Baptism of fire is that provided by repentance and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and purifies from sin. In Baptism of water we are both puurified from sin and absolved of all temporal punishment due to sin. In Baptism of blood we are purified from all misery." 233 Yet another mediaeval theologian of authority, HUGH of ST. VICTOR, has spoken to the issue. As his statement is rather lengthy, it is added as an appendix.b Let us next turn to the authority of a pope, namely that of POPE INNOCENT II who reigned from 1130-1143. He wrote to the Bishop of Cremona in a letter entitled Apostolicam Sedem: "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned."234 "Similarly, in a letter to a Bishop Berthold of Metz on August 28, 1206 he stated: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while sahying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.'" "We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: 'Go baptize all nations in the names etc.' (cf. Matt. 28:19, the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith." 235 We next provide a brief quotation taken from the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique - not that the quotation adds any significant information, but rather it demonstrates that this weighty and orthodox text published around the turn of the century, is in full concordance with all that has so far been said. "Nevertheless, regardless of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, are there not other means [than that of water] of providing for it? The Fathers [of the Church] admit to baptism of blood or martyrdom, and in a certain measure the baptism of desire, as a means of replacing the baptism of water." 236 THE COUNCIL OF TRENT is often appealed to by those who would deny baptism of blood and desire. The argument put forth is based on the second canon of the Council which states: "If anyone should say that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and should therefore twist into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost', let him be anathema." Now, there is nothing in such a statement which contradicts what has been said throughout this essay. As is always the case, one must take things in their proper context. This particular anathema was directed against Calvin who argued that water was simply a metaphor for the grace of the Holy Ghost. Thus, reference to the Decree on Justification promulgated by the Council of Trent is necessary for the full understanding of the doctrine in question. Quoting from Denzinger, yet another unquestionably Catholic source, we make note of the following: "This ... translation [i.e. from the state of original sin to the state of grace 'of the adoption of sons' (Romans 8:15) after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it...' (Denzinger 796) Some have argued against Baptism of Blood and Desire on the basis of the CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT where it is stated that "the Sacrament of Baptism can be said to exist only when we actually apply the water to someone by way of ablution, while using the words appointed by our Lord." This statement of course is only meant to apply to the "normative" form of baptism with water, and was never meant to be taken out of context as an absolute statement in and of itself. Proof of this is provided by the fact that in the Definition of Baptism given in the same section of this Catechism we find the following statement - "For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," footnoted by a reference to St. Thomas Aquinas as quoted above, and to a section in St. Alphonsus Liguori's Moral Theology. It is worth while seeing what the latter has to say on this issue. According to ST ALPHONSUS LIGUORI: "Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi - as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis." "Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ...." Note in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix. Such also is the teaching of St. CATHERINE OF SIENNA. Christ addressed the issue of Baptism in response to her question in the following terms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that tyou mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. Thereis no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is stteped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this wayh the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; byt falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which hd drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."237 One penultimate argument is drawn from CANON LAW. Those who deny Baptism of Desire and Blood are prone to quote Canon 1239 which states: "Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial." However this canon is immediately followed by Canon 1239 (ii) which states: "Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized." A final witness to the constant teaching of the Church is no less a person than Pope Saint Pius X. In the Catechism of Christian Doctrine which he ordered printed, paragraph 132 states: "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." (italics in original)238 CONCLUDING COMMENTS: Once again, let it be clear that examples of baptism of desire apart from those who undergo martyrdom are hard to come by, for the simple reason that those so desirous who do not suffer martyrdom or untimely death, are able to receive the sacrament in a "normal" manner. We have provided more than ample evidence that the Church has always accepted Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as efficacious means of "regeneration." This doctrine has been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from the earliest days down to recent times. Individuals so graced have been repeatedly raised to her altars. The principle has been incorporated into her liturgy as is demonstrated by examples taken from the Breviary. The doctrine is accepted by the Bollandists, by those who promulgate the Church's official "dictionaries," by innumerable saints and theologians239 and by Canon Law. As opposed to this, one cannot point to a single official document of the Church's Magisterium that denies the efficacy of these other forms of Baptism.240 It is true that there are "anecdotal" stories of individuals who have been brought back to life in order to receive baptism of water, or who have received the "laver of regeneration" in some other miraculous manner. Such stories however - and there is no reason to deny their veracity - in no way prove the contrary to our thesis. No one can deny but that God is able to achieve His ends in ways beyond our ken. But such stories are not points of doctrine; they are not to be found in the liturgy of the Church; they are not discussed by the doctors of the Church; they are not pointed to in her Catechisms; and edifying as they may be, they do not command our belief and acceptance. I think it can be said that the Church has more than adequately spoken to this issue. No Catholic "in good faith" can deny the efficacy of Baptism of Desire and of Blood. May we all have the purity of heart and faith that those who have been regenerated through such means are known to have had. We can do no better than to conclude this essay with a passage from Father Lacordaire, translated and taken from the writing of Kenhelm Digby, an Englsh Catholic convert who live well over 150 years ago. "Christ has created the society of souls founded on Him in love. All persons, it is true, do not know the source of the fire that consumes them. Some cannot name Jesus Christ because He has never been named to them. Obscure victims of the cross which saves them, they have not been led from their birth to the feet of Calvary. But a drop of this blood has searched for them across invisible furrows, and mixed with theirs as an aroma of eternal life; they have responded by a silent groaning to the appeal of charity. The Church, therefore, is not alone what it appears to us. It is not only in this visible construction, where all is history, authenticity, hierarchy, virtues and external miracles; it is also in the twilight, in the evanescent shades, in that which has neither form nor memory, sanctities lost to the vision of men, but not lost to that of angels. There is not a single soul besides, however well known, which has not an impenetrable sanctuary, and which does not offer to God, in this holy of holies, a mysterious incense, that does not reckon on the manifestation of this world, but which weighs in the glory of the other. Thus the Church partly invisible; and, remark here, neither is the creation confined wholly to the luminous globes of firmament. It is not alone in the cedars of Solomon, in waves of the ocean, in the wings of the eagle, in the continence of the lion; it is also in the sand of the desert, in the herb that stoops under a drop of water, in the insect which the sun warms, and which it does not see. Love, which is the foundation of the Church, is the most palpable of living fluids; and if the eye of man has never been able to detect, in the light tissue of his nerves, the ambrosia which animates them, how much more ignorant is he of the ways of divine love? Young as you are, then, you know enought not to limit the Church to the visible walls of Jerusalem and to the exterior towers of Sion. Wherever the love of God is, there is Jesus Christ. Wherever Jesus Christ, there is the Church with Him. And if it is true that every Christian ought to unite himself to the body of the Church as soon as he knows of its existence, so it is also certain that invincible ignorance dispenses with this law, to leave its victim under the immediate government of Jesus Christ. The Church, then, has an extension which no human eye can embrace; and those who oppose to us the limits which it seems to their eyes to have, are persons who have no idea of the twofold radiance which is in its nature, raising up for it souls from the east and from the west, under the sun that has gone down as well as under the sun that is above the horizon." (Evenings on the Thames or Serene Hours, Longman, Green, 1864.) APPENDIX Taken from Book Two, Part Six of De Sacramentis by Hugh of St. Victor, (13th Century)241 Some either through curiosity or zeal are accustomed to inquire whether anyone after the enjoining and proclaiming of the sacrament of baptism can be saved, unless he actually receives the sacrament of baptism itself. For the reasons seem to be manifest and they have many authorities, (if, however, they are said to have authorities, who do not understand); first, because it is said: "Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (Cf. John 3, 5), and again: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," (Mark 16, 16). There are many such passages which seem, as it were, to affirm that by no means can he be saved who has not had this sacrament, whatever he may have besides this sacrament. If he should have perfect faith, if hope, if he should have charity, even if he should have a contrite and humble heart which God does not despise, true repentance for the past, firm purpose for the future, whatever he may have, he will not be able to be saved, if he does not have this. All this seems so to them on account of what is written: "Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (Cf. John 3, 5). Yet if someone would ask; what has happened to those who, after shedding blood for Christ, departed this life without the sacrament of water, they dare not say that men of this kind are not saved. And, although one cannot show that this is written in what is mentioned above, yet they dare not say that, because it is not written there, it is to be denied. For he who said: "Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost," did not add: "or by pouring forth his blood instead of water," and yet this is true, although it is not written here. For if he is saved who received water on account of God, why is he not saved much more who sheds blood on account of God? For it is more to give blood than to receive water. Moreover, what some say is clearly silly, that those who shed blood are saved because with blood they also shed water in the very water which they shed they receive baptism. For if those who are killed are said to have been baptized on account of the moisture of water which drips from their wounds together with the corruption of blood, then those who are suffocated or drowned or are killed by some other kind of death where blood is not shed have not been baptized in their blood and have died for Christ in vain, because they did not shed the moisture of the water which they had within their body. Who would say this? So, he is baptized in blood who dies for Christ, who, even if he does not shed blood from the wound, gives life which is more precious than blood. For he could shed blood and, if he did not give life, shedding blood would be less than giving life. Therefore, he sheds blood well who lays down his life for Christ, and he has his baptism in the virtue of the sacrament, without which to have received the sacrament itself, as it were, is of no benefit. So where this is the case, to be unable to have the sacrament does no harm. Thus, it is true, although it is not said there, that he who dies for Christ is baptized in Christ. Thus, they say, it is true, although it is not said there, and it is true because it is said elsewhere, even if it is not said there. For He who said: "Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God," the same also said elsewhere: "He who shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father," (Cf. Matt.10, 32). And so what is not said there, is nevertheless to be understood although it is not said, since it is said elsewhere. Behold therefore why they say it. They say that what is not said is to be understood where it is not said, because it is said elsewhere. If, therefore, this is to be understood in this place where it is not said, since it is said elsewhere: "He who believeth in me, shall not die forever," (Cf. John 11, 26). Likewise He who said: "Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, " He himself said: "He who believeth in me, shall not die for ever." therefore, either deny faith or concede salvation. What does it seem to you? Where there is faith, where there is hope, where there is charity, finally, where there is the full and perfect virtue of the sacrament, there is no salvation because the sacrament alone is not and it is not, because it cannot be possessed. "He that believeth," He said, "and is baptized, shall be saved," (Mark 16, 16). Therefore behold there is no doubt but that where there is faith and is baptism, there is salvation. And what follows? "But he that believeth shall not be condemned," (Cf. Mark 16, 16). Why did He wish to speak thus? Why did He not say: "He that believeth not and is not baptized, shall be condemned," just as He had said: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved?" Why, unless because it is of the will to believe and because he who wishes to believe cannot lack faith. And so in him who does not believe, an evil will is always shown, where there can be no necessity which may be put forth as an excuse. Now to be baptized can be in the will, even when it is not possibility, and on this account justly is good will with the with the devotion of its faith not to be despised, although in a moment of necessity he is prevented from receiving that sacrament of water which is external. Do you wish to know more fully whether or not this reason is proven elsewhere by more manifest authority, although even those authorities which we have mentioned above seem so manifest that there can be no doubt about the truth of them? Listen to something more, if by chance this matter about which you should not be in doubt can be shown you more clearly. Blessed Augustine in his book, "On the One Baptism," speaks as follows: again and again as I consider it, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can fulfill what was lacking to baptism but also faith and conversion of heart, if perhaps assistance could not be rendered for the celebration of the mystery of baptism in straitened circumstances. You see that he clearly testifies that faith and conversion of heart can suffice for the salvation of good will where it happens that the visible sacrament of water of necessity cannot be had. But lest perhaps you think that he contradicted himself, since afterwards in the Book of Retractions he disapproved of the example of the thief which he had assumed to establish this opinion where he had said that the shedding of blood or faith and change of heart could fulfill the place of baptism, saying: "In the fourth book, when I said that suffering could take the place of baptism, I did not furnish a sufficiently fitting example in that of the thief about whom there is some doubt as to whether he was baptized," you should consider that in this place he only corrected an example which he had offered to prove his opinion; he did not reject his opinion. But if you think that that opinion is to be rejected, because the example is corrected, then what he had said is false, that the shedding of blood can take the place of baptism, since the example itself was furnished to prove that. For he does not say: "When I said that faith could have the place of baptism," but he says: "When I said that suffering could have the place of baptism," although he had placed both in the one opinion. If, therefore, regarding what he said, that suffering can have the place of baptism, an example has been furnished, since it is established that it is true without any ambiguity, it is clear that the example was afterwards corrected by the opinion was not rejected. You should, therefore, either confess that true faith and confession of the heart can fulfill the place of baptism in the moment of necessity or show how true faith and unfeigned charity can be possessed where there is no salvation. Unless perhaps you wish to say that no one can have true faith and true charity, who is not to have the visible sacrament of water. Yet by what reason or by what authority you prove this I do not know. We meanwhile do not ask whether anyone who is not to receive the sacrament of baptism can have these, since this alone as far as this matter is concerned is certain: if there were anyone who had these even without the visible sacrament of water he could not perish. There are many other things which could have been brought up to prove this, but what we have set forth above in the treatment of the sacraments to prove this point we by no means think needs reconsideration. 1 Lines taken from Georges Panneton's Heven or Hell, Newman Press, Westminster Maryland, 1965. Consider the Jews in Egypt. They had saved the land from famine, but had subsequently been enslaved. How cruel and unjust the God of Abraham must have appeared to them. But would they have followed Moses into the wilderness in any other circumstance? One may be permitted to doubt it. 2 In discussing the layman Eusebius' attack on the heretic Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Dom Gueranger wrote: "When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian by virtue of this title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasures of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is tthe same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals." 3 "God showed me the very great delight that He has in all men and women who accept, firmly and humbly and reverently, the preaching and teaching of Holy Church, for he is Holy Church. For He is the foundation, He is the substance, He is the teaching, He is the teacher, he is the end, He is the reward." Julian of Norwich, Showings, Chapter xvi. 4 Included within the magisterium are the teachings about the sacraments though their administration pertain to the priestly function. 5 Donald Attwater, Catholic Dictionary, Macmillan: N.Y.,1952 6 "Must", that is, if he wishes to call himself Catholic. 7 The Church could never require its members to take an Oath which violated the infallible truth. These specifics are drawn from Tanquerey's Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Desclee: N.Y., 1959. 8 According to Tanquerey, "The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure. A doctrinal censure is 'a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals'. It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false. All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and from the practice of the Church from the earliest days. The Church has always made judgments against false propositions and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering to these judgments. Many assert that in all doctrinal censures the Church is infallible." Tanqueray, op. cit. 9 Etienne Gilson, Introduction to The Church Speaks to the Modern World, Doubleday: N.Y. "These letters are the highest expression of the ordinary teaching of the Church. To the extent that they restate the infallible teachings of the Church, the pronouncements of the Encyclical letters are themselves infallible. Moreover, while explaining and developing such infallible teachings, or while using them as a sure criterion in the condemnation of errors, or even while striving to solve the social, economic and political problems of the day in the light of these infallible teachings, the popes enjoy the special assistance of the Holy Spirit." Another way to look at Encyclicals is to ask if in issuing them the Pope uses his Apostolic authority; if he is dealing with matters of faith and morals, and if he intends to define and to bind the consciences of all Catholics. "If he does, he is speaking from the Chair of Peter and exercising his ex cathedra authority. 10 Also from Tanquerey, op. cit. Other classifications can be found, but the essential principles remain the same. Melchior Cano (or Canus), one of the principal theologians of the Council of Trent, taught that there are ten theological "loci" or places where the "teaching imparted by Christ and the Apostles could be found." They are the following: 1) The Scriptures; 2) The divine and Apostolic Traditions; 3) The universal Church; 4) The Councils, and above all the General (Ecumenical) Councils; 5) The Roman Church; 6) The holy fathers; 7) The Scholastic theologians; 8) Natural reason; 9) the philosophers and jurors [of Canon law]; and 10) human history. According to him the first seven belong to the realm of theology, while the last three relate to the other sciences. (Quoted in Rohrbacher, Histoire Universelle de L'Eglise Catholique, Letouzey et Ane, Editeurs, Paris, Vol. X, p. 118).. 11 The infallibility of Council teachings is dependent upon the Pope's approbation. The pseudo-Council of Pistoia never received this and was never recognized as a Council. 12 Michael Davies claims that the Declaration on Religious Liberty made by Vatican II is "only a document of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and that the possibility of error occurs or can occur in such documents where it is a matter of some novel teaching The magisterium can eventually correct such an error without compromising itself... It will therefore be the eventual task of the magisterium to evaluate the objections made to the Declaration and then to explain how it is compatible with previous teaching, or to admit that it is not compatible and proceed to correct it" (Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty, TAN: Ill., 1980 and The Remnant, June 15, 1982.). Suffice it to say - the matter will be discussed in detail later - that not only this Declaration, but also Michael Davies's opinion are contrary to innumerable Magisterial statements of the traditional Church. For proof that the post-Conciliar Church considers Vatican II to be magisterial, see footnote 61 below. 13 According to this view, the ordinary and universal Magisterium consists in some manner, of the sum total of bishops in every place and throughout the course of history from the time the Church was founded down to the present day; while at the same time the community of bishops (with the Pope) at any given period during the course of history, is in no way infallible in its ordinary teaching. This is essentially the position of Archbishop Lefebvre 14 Strictly speaking the "rock" on which the Church is founded is Jesus Christ. 15 Dom Grea, The Church and its Divine Constitution, quoted from Forts dans La Foi, edited by Father Noel Barbara. The term "episcopate" refers to the body of bishops. Strictly speaking one cannot speak of a "bad pope". Being the instrument of Christ, a pope as such is necessarily "good". Such adjectives as applied to popes relate to the state of their soul and not to their function. A sinner, just like anyone else, the pope, even when he functions as Christ's minister, can be, as a human being, in a state of grace or one of mortal sin. It is a teaching of elementary theology that the state of a minister's soul has no influence or effect on his ministry, because this effect comes totally and exclusively from Christ who is its source. Thus it is that whenever a pope is functioning in his office of pope, it is Christ who speaks, who acts, and who governs through him. There is never any justification for a member of the believing Church to disobey a valid pope when it is Christ who speaks, acts and governs through him. And just as one cannot speak of a "bad pope", so also one cannot speak of a "heretical Pope", of one who is only "materially" pope, or of one who is only "juridically" a pope. Assuming a valid election, assuming that the individual is a member of the "believing Church", either a man is, or he is not, a pope. He can never be "half a pope". 16 Strictly speaking one cannot speak of a "bad pope". Being the instrument of Christ, a pope as such is necessarily "good". Such adjectives as applied to popes relate to the state of their soul and not to their function. A sinner, just like anyone else, the pope, even when he functions as Christ's minister, can be, as a human being, in a state of grace or one of mortal sin. It is a teaching of elementary theology that the state of a minister's soul has no influence or effect on his ministry, because this effect comes totally and exclusively from Christ who is its source. Thus it is that whenever a pope is functioning in his office of pope, it is Christ who speaks, who acts, and who governs through him. There is never any justification for a member of the believing Church to disobey a valid pope when it is Christ who speaks, acts and governs through him. And just as one cannot speak of a "bad pope", so also one cannot speak of a "heretical Pope", of one who is only "materially" pope, or of one who is only "juridically" a pope. Assuming a valid election, assuming that the individual is a member of the "believing Church", either a man is, or he is not, a pope. He can never be "half a pope". 17 Ds stands for Denzinger, op. cit. 18 It is never inopportune to declare the truth. Cardinal Newman - was one of the leaders of this faction. 19 Approaches, (Ayrshire, Scotland), No. 89, 1985 20 Cardinal Henry Manning (an Anglican Convert), Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese, several editions. 21 Rev. M. Muller, C.SS.. Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine, Benzinger: N.Y., 1888 22 The infallibility of Council teachings is dependent upon the Pope's approbation. The pseud-Council of Pistoia never received this and was never recognized as a Council. The post-Conciliar "popes" have declared Vatican II (all of it) to be the "highest form of the ordinary magisterium." 23 An important consequence of the declaration on infallibility at Vatican I was that the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX was clearly declared to fall within the realm of the Ordinary Magisterium. Prior to this many attempts were made to examine the sources of the condemned errors in order to show that they were not "worded" in such a way as to make them binding. It also protected the list of errors - Lamentabili - associated with Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi. Here again the modernists tried the same tactics, forcing Pius X to declare them to be binding in his Moto Proprio "Praestantia Scripturae "(18, Nov. 1907). ("anyone having the temerity to defend any proposition, opinion or reproved doctrine will ipso fact incur ... excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff.") Again, the Oath against Modernism has been dropped. Despite this, anyone who cannot give his assent to this Oath, once required of every prelate at every step in his journey towards the priesthood or episcopacy, places himself outside the true Church. 24 op. cit. No 21. 25 New York: D,J. Sadlier, 1887, pgs. 95-96. 26 Exposition of Christian Doctrine - Course of Instruction written by a seminary professor of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, McVey: Phil., 1898. 27 Cardinal Henry Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Burns, Oates: London, 1909. 28 Quoted by Jorgensen in his Life of St. Catherine of Sienna. 29 W. Wilmers, S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, Benzinger: N.Y., 1891. This manner in which the Church sees itself is a far cry from the teaching of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar "popes". The Document The Church Today teaches "Christians are joined with the rest of men in search for truth" and Paul VI tells us that today "the Church is seeking itself. With a great and moving effort, it is seeking to define itself, to understand what it truly is..." 30 Atheists and those that deny the existence of any "religious issue" also exercise private judgment - either their own or by submitting to the private judgment of others. Ultimately the only authority for private judgment is what an individual or group "feels" is true. Some claim their beliefs are based on reason, but if reason were a sufficient guide to religious truth, and if all men reasoned alike, all would believe the same "truths". The Church teaches that we are not allowed to believe anything against reason, but at the same time offers to us many mysteries or truths which, even though they cannot be proved by reason, are in themselves reasonable. Such truths are said to be "beyond reason" in the sense that they derive from Revelation. If neither Revelation nor reason is the source of our beliefs, then they must arise from our sub- conscious. Thus William James defines religion as the "feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." (quoted in Fulton Sheen, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy, Longmans: N.Y., 1925). The idea that religion is a feeling arising in the subconscious (Immanentism ) is a condemned proposition of Modernism. 31 "Groups" or "ecclesiastical communities" may agree on broad issues, but never on detailed doctrine. The Protestant denominations early found it necessary to distinguish between "fundamental" and "non-fundamental" beliefs - the latter of which their followers were free to "pick and choose". Catholics are forbidden to make such distinctions. They must believe all that the Church teaches - even those things of which they may not be specifically aware. Yet this is the basic concept that underlies the modern ecumenical movements: as long as we are "baptized in Christ", we are free to believe anything we want. In order to get around the difficulty Vatican II teaches that "when comparing doctrines, they should remember that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith" (De Oecumenismo). Dr. Oscar Cullman (one of the Protestant "observers") considers this passage the "most revolutionary" to be found in the entire Council, and Dr. McAfee Brown concurs while adding that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption which are "stumbling blocks in the ecumenical discussion" should clearly be well down on the scale of the "hierarchy of truths". (Michael Davies, Pope John's Council, Augustine: Devon, 1977). 32 Religious Freedom, Paragraph ll. 33 Consider the following statement given out in June 1978 by the Catholic Theological Society of America: "Any form of sexual intercourse, including both homosexuality and adultery, could be considered acceptable, so long as it is 'self-liberating, other- enriching, honest, faithful, socially responsible, life-serving and joyous.'" (The traditional Church considers Homosexuality a sin "crying unto heaven for vengeance on earth" - Gen. 18:20-21; Rom. 1:26-32.) It will be argued that Rome protested against this statement - however all the individuals responsible are still functioning as Catholic priests with full faculties to hear confession and some of them teach in seminaries. No recantation was ever required. Much closer to the Catholic position is the statement of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a black activist leader. "One has to have an ethical base for a society. Where the prime force is impulse, there is the death of ethics. America used to have ethical laws based on Jerusalem. Now they are based on Sodom and Gomorrah, and civilizations rooted in Sodom and Gomorrah are destined to collapse." 34 To quote Michael Davies (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 140): "It was the Council as an event which gave the green light to the process of the formal deification of man." He quotes Father Gregory Baum, one of the periti (experts) at the Council, and currently head of the Congregation in charge of seminaries, as stating "I prefer to think that man may not submit to an authority outside of himself." Or again, John Paul II's statement: "To create culture, we must consider, down to the last consequences and entirely, Man as a particular and independent value, as the subject bearing the person's transcendence. We must affirm Man for his own sake, and not for some other motive or reason; solely for himself! Even further, we must love man because he is man, by reason of the special dignity he possesses" (Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980). 35 A Catholic cannot deny any truth the Church teaches. He must accept them all. As Pope Leo XIII said, "To refuse to believe in any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all" (Sapientiae Christianae). 36 Few recognize the internal contradiction between returning to primitive practice and adapting the faith to the needs of modern man. The combination attacks the faith at both ends and leaves very little in the middle. 37 Pertinent is Paul VI's statement quoted in La Documentation Catholique of 3 May, 1970 to the effect that his Novus ordo Missae (the new mass) "has imparted greater theological value to the liturgical texts so that the lex orandi conformed better with the lex credendi". This is a frank declaration that either the liturgical texts in use for hundreds of years by the Catholic Church did not possess the degree of theological value which was desirable, or that his new "mass" reflects a change in the lex credendi. Jean Madiran commented on this to the effect that "the new Eucharistic prayers must conform better than the Roman Canon [did] with the true faith; this is also the opinion of the Taize community, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and the World Council of Churches..." (Itineraires, Dec. 1973) 38 It is of interest to listen to Luther's own words on the nature of heresy, words he used prior to his open rupture with the Church, but at a time when he had already embraced and expressed certain opinions inconsistent with Apostolic teaching: "the principal sin of heretics is their pride... In their pride they insist on their own opinions... frequently they serve God with great fervor and they do not intend any evil; but they serve God according to their own wills... Even when refuted, they are ashamed to retract their errors and to change their words... They think they are guided directly by God... The things which have been established for centuries and for which so many martyrs have suffered death, they begin to treat as doubtful questions... They interpret the Bible according to their own heads and their own particular views and carry their own opinions into it..." (Theological lectures on the Psalms, Dresden 1876; quoted by J. Verres,. Luther, Burns Oates: London, 1884). Ex ore tuo te judico! 39 It has also been said that a man who is his own spiritual guide has Satan for his spiritual director. 40 Cf. Dr. Orestes Brownson: "Private judgement is only when the matters judged be 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." (Brownson's Quarterly Review, Oct. 1851). "Here is the error of our Protestant friends. they recognize no distinction between reason and private judgment. Reason is common to all men; private judgment is the special act of an individual... In all matters of this sort 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, unless through his own fault. Private judgment is not so called...because it is a judgment of an individual, but because it is a judgment rendered by virtue of a private rule of principle of judgment... The distinction here is sufficiently obvious, and from it we may conclude that nothing is to be termed 'private judgment' which is demonstrable from reason or provable from testimony." (ibid, Oct. 1852). 41 "Catholics establish with certainty, by objective criteria, the fact that the Church is infallible and then listen in docility to her teachings and at no point does mere opinion play any part in the procedure; whereas Protestants opine that Holy Scripture is Divinely revealed (this cannot be proved without the Church); they opine that it is to be interpreted by each individual for himself; they opine that their opinion as to its meaning will be sufficient for their salvation; and each and every interpretation they make of its meaning (except where no conceivable doubt exists from the text) is no more than an opinion." John Daly, Michael Davies - An Evaluation, Britons Catholic Library, 1989. I am grateful to this author for his suggestions and corrections in this part of the text. 42 Father Smarius, S.J., puts it thus: "The chief cause of this moral degeneracy may be traced to the principle of private judgment introduced by Luther and Calvin, as the highest and only authority in religion and morality. Since the time of these Reformers, religion ceased to be the mistress, and became the slave of man. He was no longer bound to obey her, but she was bound to obey him. His reason was no longer subject to her divine authority, but she became the subject of his prejudices and passions. The Scriptures although cried up as the supreme authority, lost their objective value, and men no longer listened to the words 'Thus saith the Lord', but gave ear to the freaks and fancies of every upstart prophet and doctor, whose best reason for the faith was, 'I believe so', 'it is my impression', 'it is my opinion'. Reason itself was dethroned, and feeling became the exponent of truth. Men judged of religion as they did of their breakfasts and dinner... new fashions of belief became as numerous as new fashions of dress..." Points of Controversy, O'Shea: N.Y., 1873. 43 Plato, Republic, IV, 506C. 44 The current expression of this error is the Protestant claim to be "saved". Those who are certain of their salvation would do well to consider the words of St. Paul: "I fight, not as one beating the air: but I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway" (1 Cor. 10:1-5). The Church has always taught that as long as man has the use of his faculties, he is capable of denying God and falling from grace. 45 Appendix to his work on the Council of Trent. 46 The Apostolic Succession relates to the passing on of Holy Orders, specifically the Episcopacy. 47 This paragraph is not intended to exhaust the meaning of this term in the Creed. The Church is holy, not only because she admits no errors against the revealed word of God, but also because she is holy in her Sacraments and morals; because her children, as long as they are preserved in their baptismal innocence or restored to it, are holy, and because of the communion of saints. The Apostolic Succession is the "iniatiatic chain" which conveys the power of confecting the Sacraments from one generation to the next. This "succession" pertains to the order of bishops who in this manner preserve the "Apostolic function" down through the ages. 48 That "Head" is Jesus Christ whose representative or "vicar" on earth is the Pope. Hence it follows that to refuse to obey a pope who commands us to do what is against the laws of God is never to "attack" the papacy, but rather to defend it. 49 The Remnant, Feb. 15, 1984. As the Documents of Vatican II state, "all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated with Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored with the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church... From her very beginnings there arose in this one and only Church of God certain rifts which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large Communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic church - developments for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame. However, none cannot impute the sin of separation to those who at present are born into these communities and are instilled therein with Christ's faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and who have been properly baptized are brought into a certain though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church." Elsewhere the Document states "the brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation" (Decree on Ecumenism). The Anglican minister James Atkinson makes the following comment on such passages: "The council Fathers made a valuable concession, the significance of which has not been sufficiently grasped, when they conceded a unity in baptism, an insight of Luther himself, and a frequent emphasis of the late Cardinal Bea when he headed the ecumenical commissariat." (Rome and Reformation Today, Latimer Studies No. 12, Oxford). He quotes Luther as saying "A Christian or baptized man cannot loose his salvation, even if he would, by sins, however numerous; unless he refuses to believe" (The Babylonian Captivity). Now the idea that unity of any kind rests on baptism alone, or that we are "justified through faith in Baptism" is false. These teachings violate a whole host of traditional Catholic doctrines such as "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church". There is no such thing as being a partial Catholic; nor can the Church admit that the rites of non Catholics are a source of grace. How different is the statement of Pius XII: "only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults." St. Fulgentius teaches: "for neither baptism, nor liberal alms, nor death itself for the profession of Christ, can avail a man anything in order to salvation if he does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church" (ad Petrum Diaconum. C. 39). 50 If not, the "gates of hell" would have prevailed. Actually, if only one true Catholic were to be left alive on earth, unity would reside in him. 51 Quoted in The Reunion of Christendom, A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, Archbishop Henry Manning, Appleton: N.Y., 1866. 52 Canon George Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Macmillan, N.Y., 1949. 53 op. cit. No. 51. 54op. cit. No. 39. 55 Lutherans and Anglicans also use the Nicene Creed in which this phrase is found. They of course hold that Catholics teach a false religion, and that as such they have no right to use the phrase. John Paul II did not hesitate to repeat the Nicene Creed with the Lutherans when he joined them in their service in Rome in 1983. One wonders whether he understood the phrase in the Lutheran or the Catholic sense. 56 Quotations in this paragraph are respectively from Strom. lib. vii; Advers haeres. lib. 1. 10 and Lib. 1. Cont. Jul. cap. 3 The Quote from Augustine is given in Cardinal Joannes Franzelin's Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, De Prop. Fide: Rome, 1870. 57 An excellent summary with documentation from over 50 recognized theologians dealing with "The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church by Father Bernard Lucien (in English) is available from the author for $15.00 58 Father Noel Barbara has stated" As soon as we accept the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, we should make a firm determination to never in any way depart from her official teaching, and this not only with regard to matters of faith, but also with regard to matters of discipline. With regard to these authentic teachings we should forbid ourselves to make any distinctions between those things which we like while rejecting those we find difficult to accept. When I speak of the magisterium it shoujld be clear that I am thinking of the authentic magisterium of the Church and not that of the popes of Vatican II. The teaching of the infallible magisterium and her disciplinary decisions are to be found in the authentic documents which are available for us to consult." (Letter) 59 There can be no doubt but that the post-Conciliar "popes" have rejected the authority of the Magisterium and would lead us to do the same. They thus have lost their authority because it cannot be said of them that he who hears them is hearing Christ. This is not a matter of "theological opinion." However, when it comes to describing or designateing what these "popes" should be called, or to explaining how this is happened, (materialiter/formaliter, sede vacante, etc., ) we are forced by circumstance into the realm of theological opinion. 60 There are those that argue that this document is not part of the magisterium. Once again we are being encouraged to become Protestants. 61 Despite disclaimers that Vatican II is a "pastoral council" it should be clear that John XXIII claimed it was guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul VI in closing the Council stated that "the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wising to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." Still later he stated that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility," and added that it conferred on its teachings "the value of the supreme ordinary magisterium" (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that "It had as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicaea." Elsewhere he has called iit "the greatest of Councils" and "Even greater than the Council of Trent." Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church: "You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." John Paul II has expressed his full agreement with Paul VI who he considers as his "spiritual father" and has further stated that the Council was "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and that "obedience to the Councilis obedience to the Holy Spirit." Still elsewhere he has stated that the Council is "the authentic teaching of the Church" (Sources given in my Destruction of the Christian Tradition. 62 Documented in the Canon Law Digest, Vol V, p. 20 by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and James I O'Connor, S.J., Milwaukee: Bruce.1963. As to his Freemasonic connections, these are documented by the Surite of Police in Paris when he was papal nuncio there. (Cf. L'Abomination de la Desolation by Professeur Gabriel Chabot and Commandant Rouchette, available from the latter at B.P. 151, 16105 Cognac, Cedex, France) 63 Available from James Wetmore, 343 Route 21C, Ghent N.Y., 12075 64 This issue is complex. One must remember that the grace of God floweth where it will. Cults have to be looked at objectively in terms of the degree to which they limit the flow of grace - do they for instance retain sacramental validity and to what extent do they inforce deviation? They must also be evaluated subjectively in the sense that the person participating may be able to ignore the deviation or by-pass it. But once again it is the authentic Magisterium which makes possible to proper use of judgement. 65 St. Catherine of Sienna once told the pope that if he acted in a certain way he would go to hell, and those that obeyed him would go to hell with him (Letters). 66 Many attempts to disguise this fact behind such names as "abrogated" are used. Groups petitioning for the return of this Mass are asked not to refer to the Bull Quo Primum, which is absurd. 67 Cf. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., The Problems with the New Mass, TAN: Rockford Ill. See also A History of the Traditional or Tridentine Mass, Sophia, Vol, No.2 &3, 1995-6 (Foundation for Traditional Studies, POB 370, Oakton, VA 22124. 68 The Church of Christ, E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., London : Herder Book Co, , 1927. 69 "By following a right conscience you not only do I not incur sin, but am also immune from sin, whatever superiors may say to the contrary. For conscience obliges in virtue of divine command whether written down or in a code or instilled by natural law. To weigh conscience in the scales against obedience to legal authority is to compare the weight of divine and human decrees. The first obliges more than the second and sometimes against the second." St. Thomas Aquinas, Disputations Concerning Truth, 17, 5. 70 Cf. The author's The Problems of the New Mass, TAN, Rockford Ill., 1990. 71 As will be explained, Baptism can be administered by even a non believer, providing he uses the correct words and intends to do what the Church or Christ intends. With regard to Marriage, the priest acts as a witness on the part of the Church. In marriage the "matter" is the parties to the "contract," and the "form" is the giving of consent. 72 "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord... let him be anathema" (Denz. 844) 73 It is unfortunate that the Modernists used the term "symbol" to specify the reflection in doctrine of the beliefs of the faithful - beliefs which they held arose in the collective or individual subconscious - beliefs which were subject to change as man "evolved" and "matured." They misused this term because the early creeds were called "symbols." If one accepts their interpretation, it is obvious that "symbols" would have to change as beliefs changed. (The Modernist confuses the meaning of symbols and signs; signs can be arbitrary and can legitimately be used to indicate different meanings.) This idea and misuse of the term "symbolism" was rightly condemned by Saint Pius X in his Encyclical Pascendi, a situation which has given the term a bad connotation. True symbols are material (verbal, visual) representatives of realities that never change which is the sense in which the Church applied the term was applied to the creeds in post-Apostolic times. Just as natural laws are the manifest reflection of God's will, so all natural phenomena are in one way or another symbolic of higher realities. Nature, as St. Bernard said, is a book of scripture, or to quote the psalms, "Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei - the heavens declare the glory of God." 74 The Greek Orthodox still use this word to describe the Sacraments. The primordial sense of the term is found among the classic Greek writers, and especially as used with reference to the Mysteries of Eleusis. In vesting with the stole before Mass, the priest says, "...quamine indignus accedo ad tuum sacrum Mysterium...," meaning of course the Mystery of the Mass. 75 The Latin word sacramentum had several meanings: 1) the sum which two parties to a legal suit deposited - so called perhaps because it was deposited in a sacred place. Its meaning was often extended to include a civil suit or process. 2) it was used to describe the military oath of allegiance and by extension, any sacred obligation. 3) Tertullian used the word to describe the neophyte's promises on entering the Church at the time of baptism; he also used it with regard to "mysterious communications" on the part of what we would now call a religious sister who "conversed with the angels." 4) Finally, he used it with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist. 76 Quoted from Elizabeth Frances Rogers, Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System, New York, 1917. 77 Such would occur if for example a layman or a priest not properly ordained were to attempt to say Mass.` 78 Those seeking a more detailed review are referred to The Dictionnaire de la Théologie Catholique, Letouzey, Paris, 1939. Scriptural usage followed much the same pattern. The Greek Mysterion was translated as Sacramentum and as such the term is found 45 times - some 20 times in the writings of St. Paul alone. According to Father F. Prat, it is used in three contexts: 1 Secrets of God relative to the salvation of man by Christ, that is, secrets the meaning of which became clear with the New Covenant; 2) the hidden sense of an institution; and 3) hidden action, as in the mystery of the Resurrection to come. 79 Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908. 80 An excellent discussion of this topic is available in Father Barbara's Fortes in Fide, No. 9, (1991 series) available from F.J. Christian, 758 Lemay Ferry Road, St. Louis, Mo., 63125. 81 To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, it should be clear that one must live a life in accord with the teachings of the Church - Baptism, which wipes away the stain of original sin, in no way guarantees that the individual will not fall from the "state of grace" produced by this Sacrament. The issue of Baptism of Desire is discussed in an article by the present author in an 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, (North 8500 St. Michael's Road. Spokane, WA 99207-0905). 82 One could say that the Sacraments depending on Orders are not necessary in an absolute sense, but that, given the condition of fallen man, they are indispensable by a necessity of convenience or expedience. 83 Brother Andre of Quebec likened the priest to a seller of clothes. The salesman's personal morals had no effect on the clothes he sold. 84 This principle is well expressed by the phrase that members of the teaching Church (the hierarchy) must first of all be members of the believing Church. 85 In hospitals, nurses often baptize infants in danger of death. However, to baptize outside the case of necessity is to usurp a priestly function. 86 Strictly speaking, the priest is the witness on the part of the Church to this contractual Sacrament. This is further confirmed by the fact that in countries or locations where a priest is not available for long periods of time, a couple can marry, and when the priest arrives, the marriage is "solemnized." Again, a valid Protestant marriage is not repeated when the parties become Catholic. 87 There was a bishop in South America who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining "native" clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that when it came to native clergy he had always withheld his intention. The priest who heard his confession refused him absolution unless he gave permission for this fact to be exposed to the proper authorities. This permission was granted. All the native clergy involved were re-ordained. Such episodes are extremely rare in the history of the Church, and for obvious reasons not normally made public. 88 See Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 13, p. 299. 89 An illustration of this is the phrase "Hoc est enim corpus meum" (For this is my body) from the traditional Mass. The elimination of the word "for" (enim) would not change the meaning of the phrase. Hence it would not lead to a substantial change. It follows that "for" is not an "essential" word. The "integrity" of the form however requires that it be used, and the priest sins gravely if he intentionally fails to use it. 90 A widower can of course receive Holy Orders. Married individuals who have fulfilled their obligations to the state of marriage, may, with their wife's permission, by special dispensation, (and taking the vow of celibacy) receive Holy Orders. Similarly, older couples may, by mutual consent, both enter the religious state. The Eastern Church allows for married (non celibate) priests. Eleven of the Twelve Apostles were married. Cf. St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, Chap. III, 1-7. 91 Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon, Reno, Nevada: Athanasius, 1969 92 Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed and Ward, 1936) v. 2, p. 27. 93 Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D., The Problems with the New Mass, TAN, 1990. 94 In similar manner, many other Protestant and Anglican groups either use the Novus Ordo Missae or have brought their own rites into concordance with it. 95 DOL refers to Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979, published by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn., 1982. This text provides official translations of the innumerable post-Conciliar documents related to liturgical matters. This defenition is to be found in paragraph 7 of the General Instruction that accompanies the Novus Ordo Missae, an instruction which explains its meaning and the rubrics attached to it. 96 A further addition was made in the definition given in paragraph 7 of the new General Instruction. After the quotation from Matthew it added: "For the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently present under the eucharistic elements." Once again, there is nothing in these ambiguous phrases that would really offend a Protestant. Nowhere are we informed that the celebration involved is other than a memorial - and the very word "memorial," like the phrase "the Lord's Supper," is another 16th century Protestant Reformation term used to distinguish a Protestant service from the Catholic Mass. There is a very striking similarity between this new phraseology and the condemnation of the declaration of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia which stated: "After the consecration Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances." This proposition was condemned by the Bull Auctorum Fidei as "pernicious, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic Truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, and favoring heretics." (Denzinger, 1529). The reason it was condemned is that "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of wine into the Blood which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith..." And finally, this addition states that Christ is "really" present, as much in the assembly as in the priest and in His (Christ's) words. There is nothing within the "new" General Instruction to suggest to us that He is any more present in any other parties or "elements" then He is in the assembly of the people. 97 Michael Davies assures us that we can ignore the General Introduction and be secure with the validity of the New Mass. This is just another example of his picking and choosing which magisterial documents he likes. What priest would ever ignore De Defectibus which discusses the rubrics of the traditional Mass. 98 While the Latin Multis is preserved, in almost all the translations, the approval of which specifically rested with Paul VI, the word multis has been translated by all. 99 Apostolic Succession is to be distinguished from "Apostolicity." The Bishops are the spiritual descendents of the Apostles, and hence the Apostolic Succession is passed on through them. Apostolicity however is one of the qualities of the true Church, not only because it preserves the Apostolic Succession, but also because it teaches the same doctrines and uses the same rites that the Apostles did. 100 The phrase "null and void" was used with regard to Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII. 101 Sacramentally speaking there is no higher rank than that of Bishop. Such a statement in no way denies or repudiates the teaching of the Church on the Primacy of Peter. 102 Cardinal Gasparri in De Sacra Ordinatione, and Lennertz in his De Sacremento Ordinis both hold that the recipient of Episcopal Orders automatically receives - if he does not already have it - the powers of the priesthood. It is difficult to see why this should not be the case since he receives the summum Sacerdotium or fullness of the priesthood. The issue is discussed in Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention by Francis Clark, S.J. (subsequently laicized) Longmans, Green: London, 1956. 103 Those who would question this statement would do well to read the Vatican Instruction entitled Doctrina et exemplo on The Liturgical Formation of Future Priests (Documents on the Liturgy, No. 332, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.) They will find no recommendation that seminarians be taught anything about the Sacrificial nature of their function or about the Real Presence. 104 John Bligh, S.J., Ordination to the Priesthood, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956. 105 It is of interest that during the present century 12 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, not wishing to be under state approved (KGB) Bishops, gathered together and ordained a priest. 106 Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, January 28, 1948 107 Section on "Orders," The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Appelton, 1911,(Vol. XI). 108 Hippolytus was a schismatic bishop at the time that he compiled this text. Subsequently he was reconciled and died a Martyr. His situation and the nature of this text is discussed in greater detail below. The reader is reminded that prior to the later part of the fourth century, the Church was under persecution. Documentations during this era are, as a result, sparse. 109 Walter B. Clancy, The Rites and Ceremonies of Sacred Ordination, (A Historical Conspectus and a Canonical commentary), The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1962. 110 "Tradition" in this context means "passing on" or "handing over." 111 As Pope Pius XII pointed out in his Sacramentum Ordinis, the Church at the Council of Florence did not demand that the Greek Church adopt the tradition of the instruments. Hence it followed that the Decree to the Armenians was not meant to define the tradition of the instruments as being substantial to the rite for ordaining priests. St Alphonsus and Pope Benedict XIV were of the opinion that Eugene IV did not intend to determine the essential matter of the sacrament but desired simply to present a practical instruction to the Armenian Church concerning the use of the delivery of the instruments, and in no way sought to settle the question. (Clancy, op. cit., #32) Father P. Pourrat comments: "The Decretum ad Armenos is the official document of the Church, that treats of the binary composition of the sacramental rite. It was, as we know, added to the decrees of the Council of Florence; yet it has not the value of a conciliar definition (Father Pourrat's italics). It is "merely a practical instruction" intended for the United Armenians, and not for the whole Church. Hence, although the decree is worthy of great regard, still it does not impose itself on our faith." (Theology of the Sacraments, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1914, p. 51.) Also Cf. section on Orders in The Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. 112 It is never the common people - the laity - who desire changes. On the contrary, the majority of people prefer the security of stability, especially in religious matters. And in fact, it is vertually impossible for the laity to have wished for changes in the Sacrament of Orders in so far as their use was restricted to those in religion. 113 The Episcopalians use this ordinal. Prior to the American Revolution they were American Anglicans. However, the Anglican Church recognizes the King or Queen of England as the head of their church and such would have been inappropriate in America after 1776. Doctrinally however they are virtually the same ecclesiastical body. Thus for example, Episcopalians adhere to the same "39 articles" which among other things deny that the Mass is an immolative Sacrifice, or that the priesthood is a sacrament. 114 The Reformers "loved" the term presbyter which literally translated from the Latin meant "elder." This allowed them to use a Latin word meaning priest in an altered sense in English. (The early Church avoided using the term sacerdos or priest because of confusion with the pagan priesthood that might result.) 115 For the sake of completeness the form in the Edwardine Ordinal for the Anglican Priesthood is: "Receive the holy ghost: whose synnes thou doest forgeue, they are forgeuen: and whose synnes thou doest retayne, they are retayned: and bee thou a faithful dispensor of the word of God, and of his holy Sacraments. In the name of the father and the sonne and the holy ghost. Amen." This was changed in 1662 to: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive etc." For the Episcopate: "Take the Holy Goste, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposicion of hands: for God hath not geuen us the spirite of feare, but of power and loue and of sobernesse." This was altered in 1662 to: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of hands; In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And remember that thou stir up etc." Several theologians have stated their opinion that the 1662 forms would be valid "if used in a Catholic setting or in orthodox circumstances." (Why are Anglican (Episcopalian) Orders Invalid? by Ref. M.D. Forrest, M.S.C. St. Paul, Minn.: Father Rumble and Carty's Radio Replies Press.) 116 Because the matter has become a contended issue in recent time, it should be noted that while usual practice involves the extension of both hands, it suffices if only one is extended over the head of the ordinand. Cf. Discussion in Dictionaire de la Théologie Catholique, Letouzey: Paris. 117 Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, January 28, 1948. 118 Herve, J.M., Man. theol Dog., Tom. iv, ed nova A Orentino Larnicol C.S. Sp. Recognita, 1962: "Atque Pius XII, in Const. Apostl. "Sacramentum Ordinis," ut omnino videtur, loquitur ut Pator et Doctor Supremus, et vere definit doctrinam de fide vel moribus (doctrinam de essentia sacramenti Ordinis, quae intime connectitur cum aliis veritatibus revelatis), ab universa Ecclesia tenendum." Similarly, Mgr. G.D. Smith argues that when the Church defines what is and what is not sufficient to confer a Sacrament, such decisions involve an implied infallibility. (The church and her Sacraments, in Clergy Review, April 1950, and referred to by Father Francis Clark in his Anglican Orders and Defect in Intention, op. cit. above). Father Clancy (op. cit., #32) gives many other authorities that concur in this opinion. to quote Francisco Miranda Vincente, Auxiliary Bishop of Toledo: "This Apostolic Constitution is a true and solemn dogmatic declaration, and at the same time, as the terms used in the fourth and fifth point indicate, it is a doctrinal and disciplinary decree." 119 Francis Clark S.J., Les ordinations anglicaines, problème oecumenique, Gregorianum, vol. 45, 1964. In essence, his address to the Fathers at Vatican II on this topic. See also his review of Michael Davies,' The Order of Melchisedech. 120 The importance of significatio ex adjunctis is a confusing issue in so far as the Church teaches that "form, matter, valid orders and intention are all that are required for validity of the sacraments" (Council of Florence). Clearly, for a priest to fulfill these criteria in an inappropriate setting (as for example, a Satanic Mass), however sacrilegious, is possible. With regard to Anglican Orders, Leo XIII discussed the importance of the defects of the rite surrounding the form, but left the issue confused. As Francis Clark, S.J. points out, theologians have given seven different interpretations to his words (Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention). Francis Clark defines significatio ex adjunctis in the following terms: "the sacramental signification of an ordination rite is not necessarily limited to one phrase or formula, but can be clearly conveyed from many parts of the rite. These other parts could thus contribute, either individually or in combination, to determining the sacramental meaning of the operative formula in an unambiguous sense. Thus the wording of an ordination form, even if not specifically determinate in itself, can be given the required determination from its setting (ex adjunctis), that is, from the other prayers and actions of the rite, or even from the connotation of the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age" (The Catholic Church and Anglican Orders, CTS, 1962, quoted by Michael Davies in his Order of Melchisedech). The term "negative" significatio ex adjunctis is not hallowed by theological usage and is a phrase of convenience. Francis Clark lays great stress on this concept without using the term - cf. his Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, op. cit. A clearer way of demonstrating negative significatio ex adjunctis is the following: a priest saying the proper words of Consecration in the Mass follows them with a statement or intention that negated the meaning of those words. The deliberate removal of all references to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood (or of ordaining for bishops) in the Anglican ordinal is equivalent to denying the purpose for which a man is ordained. 121 Cf. Footnote #26. 122 Taken from his Order of Melchisedech which strongly defends the validity and legitimacy of the new rite. 123 Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Devon, England: Augustine, 1979, p. 75. Michael Davies "as if" which he places in parenthesis, is highly significant, for in the new rite, the priest is not ordained as a sacrificing priest, but in order to "say the liturgy" which is of course, the novus ordo missae. 124 It should be noted that Sacramental rites have never been considered valid because they were instituted by a Pontiff, but because they were instituted by Christ. A Pontiff may, when doubt arises, specify what it was that Christ intended. A pope cannot create a new Sacrament. Hence it is important to know whether the claim that the post-Conciliar Sacraments are substantially the same as the traditional ones becomes important. If they are, then why the changes; if they are not then are they Sacraments? In the secnd edition of The Order of Melchisedech Michael Davies considers it a "fundamental doctrine" that "any sacramental rite approved by the Pope must certainly be valid..." In essence, this means that should the pope say "green apples" is a valid sacramental form," we must accept it. 125 Father William Jenkins has discussed this issue in great detail in The Roman Catholic, Vol III, No. 8 and 11 (1981) Oyster Bay Cove, N.Y., N.Y. 11771. Still further confusion results from consulting The Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press) Document 324 tells us that the Latin taken from AAS is in hos famulos tuos, but the current official English translation is "Grant to these servants of yours" rather than "confer on these Thy servants." 126 Rama P. Coomaraswamy, Once a Presbyter, Always a Presbyter, The Roman Catholic, Vol. V, No. 7, August 1983. 127 The significance of this omission is clarified when we read in Psalm 109 that "the Lord swore and will not repent: thou art a priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek. St. Paul refers to this in Hebrews VII: 21 when he says "For those [Jewish] priests were made without an oath by Him who said unto Him" the Lord swore...." by so much was Jesus made the surity of a better priesthood. It further distinguish the priesthood of Christ in which the Catholic priest shares, from the Aaronic priesthood which terminated with the Crucifixion. Cf. Rev. J.M. Neal and R. F. Littledak, Commentary on the Psalms, Vol Iii, p. 450, Masters, London, 1874. 128 It is pertinent that the "Bishops" selected for ordaining the priests of the Society of St. Peter ("The Pope's own Traditional Order") are Ratzinger and Meyer. Both of these received their episcopal "consecration" by the new rites to be discussed in the body of this text. If they are in fact not bishops, all the priests they ordain - even if they use the traditional rites as they state they intend to do - are no more priests than any layman. 129 As Pius XII stated in his Apostolic Constitution: "Those things which We have above declared and established regarding the matter and the form are not to be understood in such a way as to make it allowable for the other rites as prescribed in the Roman Pontifical to be neglected or passed over even in the sligntest detail; nay, rather We order that all the prescriptions contained in the Roman Pontifical itself be faithfully observed and performed." 130 Pius XII said that the words in his form were "essential" and required for validity. Paul VI states that the words that constitute his form "belong to the nature of the rite and are consequently required for validity." He further states in the same document that "it is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those requiring particular mention and derogation." (Pontificalis Romani, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, July 29, 1968.) 131 A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostlicae curae', A Letter on Anglican Orders by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster in reply to the Letter Addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York, N.Y.: Longmans, Green and Co., 1898; Also to be found in Bishop Peter Richard Kendrick's The Validity of Anglican Ordinations," Phil.: Cummiskey, 1848 132 "It is not essential to express the word, "deacon," "priest," or "bishop," but the form must at least express some clear equivalent. Thus "the order of the Blessed Stephen" is a clear equivalent of the order of Deacon. It is not essential to express the main power of the priest or the bishop in the form, but if this main power were expressed, it too would be an equivalent. However, it is essential to express either the order or its main power, and if the main power is not only left out, but positively excluded, then the right name, though kept, is not the right name in reality but only a shadow. Now, the main power of a true priest is to offer a true sacrifice, and at least one of the main powers of a bishop is to make priests. Semple, H.C., S.J., Anglican Ordinations, N.Y.: Benzinger Broth, 1906. 133 Taken from Semple's book (op.cit.) the following are the various presumed consecratory forms for bishop (presumed as the Church never so specified prior to Pius XII: Ancient Roman and Ancient Gallican: "...and therefore to these Thy servants whom Thou has chosen to the ministry of the HIGH PRIESTHOOD." Greek: "DO Thou O Lord of all, strengthen and confirm this Thy servant, that by the hand of me, a sinner, and of the assisting minsters and fellow-Bishops, and by the coming, the strength, and grace of the Holy Ghost... he may obtain the EPISCOPAL DIGNITY." Maronite: "Thou who canst do all things, adorn with all virtues... this Thy servant whom Thou has made worthy to receive from Thee the sublime ORDER OF BISHOPS." Nestorian: "We offer before Thy Majesty... this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen and set apart that he may be a BISHOP." Coptic: "Or Lord, God, Almighty Ruler... bestow, therefore, this same grace upon Thy servant N., whom thou has chosen as BISHOP." Armenian: "The Divine Grace calleth this N. from the Priesthood to the EPISCOPATE. I impose hands. Pray that he may become worthy of the rank of BISHOP." Liturgy on the Constitutions of the Apostles: "Give O God... to this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen to the EPISCOPATE to feed Thy people and discharge the Office of PONTIFF." Canons of Hippolytus: "O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... look down upon Thy servant N., granting him Thy strength and power, the spirit which Thou didst give to the holy Apostles, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Give to him, O Lord, the EPISCOPATE." 134 Herve, J.M. op.,cit. Note 36 above. 135 Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum quas digessit Bonifatius Fischer, O.S.B. published by Friedrich Fromman Verlag Gunther Holzborg, Stutgard- Bad, Germany, 1977. The translation into English is from the Douay version. The Psalm in question is the penitential song of David in response to the Prophet Nathan's chiding of him for his adultery with Bathsheba. According to Father Boylan's commentary, "Spiritu principali is, apparently parallel to the spiritus rectus of verse 12. Principalis represents the Greek Hegemonikos meaning princely, leading, or ruling. The Hebrew is n'dibhah - a spirit of 'readiness,' of 'willingness' - to learn, to do the right and good (cf. Matt. XXVI:41). - 'the spirit indeed is willing [=ready]. St. Augustine understands the verse in the following sense: "'An upright spirit renew in my inner parts' which are bowed and distorted by sinning" (Commentary on Psalm 51) Cornelius Lapide follows Bellarmine in translating the phrase as "I ask that you stabilize and confirm in the good by means of the governing spirit." Father Joseph Pohle, the well known professor of dogmatics, specificly denies that Spiritum Principalis is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (The Divine Trinity, page 97 - translation of Arthur Preuss and familiarly known as Pohle-Preuss.) 136 Notitiae states that the proper translation of the word principalis is "governing," and the same issue of this semi-official journal carries the "Declaration on the Translation of Sacramental Formulas" promulgated by Paul VI on January 25, 1974, a document which states that "difficulties can arise when trying to express the concepts of the original Latin formula in translation. It sometimes happens that one is obliged to use paraphrases and circumlocutions... The Holy See approves a formula because it considers that it expresses the sense understood by the Church in the Latin text." 137 Luther defined the priesthood in these terms: "The function of the priest is to preach; if he does not preach, he is no more a priest than a picture of a man is a man. Nor does it make a man a bishop if he ordains this kind of clapper-tongued priest, or consecrates church bells, or confirms children? Never! These are things that any deacon or layman might do. What makes a priest or bishop is the ministry of the word." Elsewhere he says "Everyone who knows that he is a Christian would be fully assured that all of us alike are priests, and that we all have the same authority in regard to the word and the sacraments, although no one has the right to administer them without the consent of the members of his Church, or by call of the majority." Quoted by Father W. Jenkins, "The New Ordination Rite: An Indelible Question Mark," The Roman Catholic, VOl.III, No. 8, Sept. 1981. 138 Father Clancy, quoting Johannes Quasten's Patrology, tells us in his Historical study of the rite of Ordination that "The Apostolic Tradition had no appreciable effect on the development of the rite of ordination in the west." 139 Burton Scott Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, translated into English with an introduction and notes, Cambridge University Press, 1934; republished by Arenon Book, England, 1962. 140 According to Father (subsequently Cardinal) J. Tixeront, (Holy Orders and Ordination, St. Louis: Herder, 1928) the Consecrating bishop held his hands over the ordinand's head throughout the entire prayer. According to Father Semple S.J.,(op. cit.) after asking God to give the ordinand that spirit which "Thou didst give to the holy Apostles..." Hippolytus continued: "Give to him, O Lord, the Episcopate." He adds the following note: "But if a priest is ordained, all is done with him in like manner as with a Bishop, except that he shall not sit in the chair. The same prayer shall be prayed in its entirety over him as over the Bishop, with the sole exception of the name of EPISCOPATE. A Bishop is in all things equal to a Priest except in the name of the chair, and in Ordination, which power of ordaining is not given to the latter.") 141 Quoted from Father Brey's introduction to Patrick Henry Omlor's book, Questioning the Validity of Masses using the New All-English Canon," Reno, Nevada: Athanasius Press, 1969. This is the common teaching of moral theologians. 142 Bernard Leeming, S.J., Principles of Sacramental Theology, London: Longmans Green, 1955. 143 Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, Vol. III, p. 10. Dr. Ludwig Ott says much the same: "It is not necessary that they coincide absolutely in point of time; a moral coincidence suffices, that is, they must be connected with each other in such a fashion, that according to general estimation, they compose a unitary sign" ( Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, Ill.: TAN, 1986.) 144 Strict adherence to this response would require that they reject the heresies of Vatican II. Under such circumstances one can question whether they would be chosen by modern Rome to be "overseers." 145 Some liberal theologians argued that this Bull was not binding. Pope Leo XIII subsequently made it clear that the Bull was "irreformable." 146 Francis Clark, S.J., Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, Devon: Augustine, 1981. In his second edition of The Order of Melshisedech Michael Davies again reiterates his opinion to the effect that there can be no question about the validity of the new rites for administering Holy Orders, because they have the approval of a pope. He quotes Francis Clark with special emphasis: "The wording of an ordination form, even if not specifically determinate in itself, can be given the required determination from its setting (ex adiunctis), that is, from the other prayers and actions of the rite, or even from the connotation of the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age.." Such a doctrinal position means that the new Church can ignore 2000 years of sacramental theology and declare anything it wishes to be a valid sacramental rite.It could for example declare "monkey-shines" or "aba cadabra" to be a valid sacramental forms. 147 Rev. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, Newman: Westminster MD, 1962. 148 Letter to Fliess, quoted in Paul Vitz, Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscience, Guilford: N.Y., 1988. 149 The Reference is to Genesis 3:15 150 Rev. Adrian Kilker, Extreme Unction, A Canonical Treatise, London: Herder, 1927. The Latin is from St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gent., lib. 4., c. 73 de Ext. Unct. (trans. "the perfect healing of the soul.") 151 Sacram Unctionem infirmorum, AAS 65(1973). 152 Charles J. Keating, The Sacrament of Anointing the Sick, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June, 1974. 153 Extreme Unction is usually preceded by Confession and Absolution. 154 Paul VI in his Apostolic constitution quotes the Council as saying: "Extreme Unction, which may also and more properly be called '"the anointing of the sick,' is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for that person to receive this sacrament has certainly arrived." Once again we have the use of doublespeak. 155 The reader is reminded that the author has been a practicing surgeon for some 30 years. It is pertinent to quote the comments of Father Baumann, Director of Marydale Diocesan Retreat House and Chairman of the committee for the Continuing Education of Priests: "The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick should not be a last Sacrament any more than Baptism, confirmation, Matrimony or Holy Orders... We used to have some notion that it could effect a forgiveness of sin, and on occasion, might even restore physical health. Today we see the Sacrament NOT (his emphasis) as a preparation for death but as an aid to a more beautiful life - first and immediately on earth." (The Messenger, Sept. 12, 1982) 156 Father Thomas Richstatter, O.F.M., The New Rite for Anointing the Sick, Catholic Update, St. Anthony Message Press, 1984. Father Richstatter is a recognized authority and his texts are fairly standard teaching sources in today's seminaries. 157 Anointing the Sick, a Study in Pastoral Liturgy Prepared by the St. Thomas More Center for Pastoral Liturgy, published by Mayhew-McCrimmon Ltd., Southend-on-Sea, England and used in the Sydney Australia Archdiocese. Quoted by Hutton Gibson in his Paul VI's Legacy: Catholicism? Cochin, India: Leo Panakal, 1974. An American version is available from Catholic Update published by the St. Anthony Messenger Press (Cincinnati, Ohio) entitled The New rite for Anointing the Sick by Father Thomas Richstatter, O.F.M. 158 If the patient is incapacitated, the priest will ask him/her if they have sinned against any of the commandments and then list each of them in turn. All the patient has to do is nod his head or even blink his eyes. 159 The physician can certify that the body has died. The older medical and theological literature gave ample testimony to the fact that patients occasionally would recover after being pronounced dead by competent physicians. Rigor mortis which occurs 3 to 6 hours after apparant death was considered a point of no possible return. Current medical practice has the technology to refine the point of body death with greater accuracy - absence of electrical activity in the brain and heart. However, this is still to speak of the body and not the soul. (Cf. Rev. Juan B. Ferreres, S.J., Death, Real and Apparent in relation to The Sacraments, Herder: St. Louis, 1906.) 160 There is even a blessing for sick animals. 161 "Olive oil or another oil extracted from plants." DOL 3864. Chrism is also important in Baptism and Extreme Unction. One wonders why axle grease could not be considered an oil extracted from plants. Cases of priests using Vaseline as chrism have occurred. 162 Father P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, Herder, St. Louis, 1914, footnote, page 85. 163 B. Herder, St. Louis, 1917). 164 The Greeks refer to the Sacrament of Confirmation as "the chrism of Holy Ointment," or "the seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." 165 Many surveys gloatingly inform us that 80 to 95% of Catholics are using artificial methods of birth control. No religious distinctions can be found among parties getting divorced or abortions. 166 Many of these comments are drawn from a New York Times article, March 31 1990. 167 According to Rabbi David Kimchi, not only was such confession necessary, but, without it, sacrifices could be of no avail; for he remarks: "all the efficacy of sacrifices consists in the confession of sins and in repentance." (Quoted by Rev. L. de Goesbriand, The History of Confession, Benzinger: N.Y., 1989. 168 "Lusts" in theological writing do not necessarily imply sexual sins. One can for instance, "lust" after money. 169 S. Augustine, Sermon II, in psalm i., n. 3. 170 Quoted in Rev. Goesbriand, The History of Confession, op. cit. 171 Quoted from De Réal by Dr. Goesbriand, op. cit. 172 Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (1917), Herder: St. Louis, 1925. 173 Louis LaRavoire Morro, My Catholic faith, My Mission House, Kenosha, Wis. 174 A Villien, The History and Liturgy of the Sacraments, Burns Oates: London, 1932 175 The deprecative formula is still used in the Greek Church, but since the ninth or tenth century the Latin Church has insisted on the indicative formula. To quote Pohle-Preuss, "the indicative formula of absolution now used in the Latin Church is prescribed by Eugene IV (1439), by the Council of Trent, and by the Roman Ritual. Hence probably no other is now valid." The Sacraments, Vol. III., Herder: New York, 1918. 176 Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975, Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minn., 1990. Why they were so resistant to change in this sacrament after their laxity in the others is hard to understand. 177 The use of confessionals dates from about the 17th. Century. Prior to that time priests sat in a chair and the penitent sat or kneeled beside them. 178 The word "hell" has been all but deleted from the new translations of the bible approved for use by the post-Conciliar Church. The New American Bible uses the word but once, and this in a passage never assigned for reading from the pulpit. The Douay-Rheims version mentions it over 120 times, and the King James version over 50 times. (Cf. Roslie Cowles, The Remnant, Oct. 15, 1983. 179 I am grateful to Richard Jamison of Los Angeles, California, for his comments incorporated in the next 3 paragraphs. 180 R. Wayne Kraft, The Relevance of teilhard, p. 29. [ editor's note: John Paul II is a staunch believer in evolution as well as a follower of the theology of Paul VI (who also believed in evolution). With regard to Vatican II and the teachings of Paul VI: the principal task of his pontificate is "a coherent realization of the teaching and the directives of the Second Vatican Council is and continues to be the principal task of this pontificate." (Address at a plenary meeting of the Sacred College of Cardinals, Nov. 5, 1979) With regard to evolution he has stated: "the evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator." ((The Wanderer, August 6,1985.) . This may well explain his repeated statements to the effect that all men are saved. "Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." (Gaudium et Spes, No. 22) "From now on and always, without regret and wtithout turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and to give it His Son the redeemed... For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity." (General Audience, March 25, 1981.) "Christ obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man - of each man and of all men, of those whom no one shall snatch from His hand... Who can change the fact that we are redeemed - a fact that is as powerful and fundamental as creation itself. We became again the property of the Father thanks to that Love Who does not recoil from the ignomy of the Cross to be able to guarantee to all men "No one shall snatch you out of my hand." The Church announces today the paschal certitude of the Resurrection, the certitude of salvation" (visit to Santa Maria in Treastevere, April 27, 1980). What then is the meaning of the Crucifixion? According to John Paul II, "it is precisely beside the path to man's eternal election to the dignity of being an adopted child of God that there stands in history the Cross of Christ, the only-begotten Son, who as 'light of light, true God of true God,' has come to give the final witness to this wonderful Covenant of God with humanity, of God with man - every human being." (Dives et Misericordia, para. 5). One must suspect that John Paul II is himeself, if not a thorough going Teilhardian, at least strongly influenced by de Chardin's thinking.) 181 Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 29. The principle author of this particular document was John Paul II. (Cf. Note above). 182 McElwain, Hjugh, O.S.,M. Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, p. 71., New York: Harper and Row, 1969 183 Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teiolhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 5. 184 An excellent and in-depth discussion of Teilhard de Chardin is provided by Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, TAN, Rockford Ill., 1988. 185 Taken in large part from Bishop McKenna's comments on Ecumenical Baptism, published in Catholics Forever, August 1996. 186 L'Osservatore Romano, Nov. 7, 1974 187 Walter Aabbott, S.J., The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 159-160 188 Summa Theologica, 3a, q64, art. 8, ad.1 189 Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 167-168. 190 Right Rev. Joseph Pohle, PhD. DD. The Sacraments, p. 174 191 DB, n. 1318 192 "washes away every stain of sin, original and personal" 193 Archbishop Francis Kenrick, A Treatise on Baptism., Baltimore: Hedian & O'Brien, 1852 194 Rev. John Murphy, The Sacrament of Baptism., p. 55. , New York: Macmillan, 1929 195 St. Augustine, De bapt. cont. Donat., vii, 53, 102 196 Rev. John Murphy, The Sacrament of Baptism, p. 55-56, op. cit. 197 T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law, A text and Commentary, p. 559., Milwaukee: Bruce, 1951. 198 Ulric Beste, O.S.B., American Ecclessiastical Review, April 1950, p. 257 199 ibid, p. 270 200 ibid, p. 272 201 John Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D., and Hannan, Jerome D. AM. LLB. STD. JCD. The Sacred Canons, Vol. II, pp. 305-309. St. Louis: Herder, 1952. 202 Ulric Beste, O.S.B., op. cit., p. 273. 203 Ulric Beste, O.S.B. op cit. , p. 268-269 204 Ulric Beste, O.S.B., op. cit. p. 273 205 Archbishop Francis Kenrick, op. cit. 206 S.C. Conc. March 27, 1683; S. Off. April 6, 1859; February 21, 1883. 207 S.C. December 28, 1949. 208 Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments, pp. 67-68. Staten Island: Alba House, 1965. 209 Bishop Louis LaRavoire, S.T.D., My Catholic Faith, p. 255. 210 Henry Davis, S.J;., Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, p. 25. London: Sheed and Ward, 1945. 211 ibid. 212 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, op. cit. 213 Summa., Suppl., Q 42, art. 1, ad 1: 214 True consent should be absolute and express the intention of the will with regard to everything that is essential to marriage: the exclusive and perpetual right over each others bodies with regard to sexual union and procreation. (The intent to limit the number of children would be sinful, but not invalidating, unless this determination was the sine qua non for the marriage.) Protestant marriages are valid though of course there can be no requiement on their part to bring up their children in the Catholic Faith. The finer technicalities of canon law are beyond the purpose of this book. 215 Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville Minnesota, 1982. No. 2973 216 Clearly this is associated with the need for the husband to love his wife as the Christ loved the Church, for him in fact to be an alter Christus in the family which is in turn patterned after the Church. 217 L'Osservatore Romano, German edition of 27.8.82. 218 Hirtenwort der deutschen Erzbishoefe und Bichoefe zur Neurodnung des Ehe-und Familienrechte, printed as a supplement to St. Korads Blatt, No. 10, 1953. 219 So declared by the Holy Office with the approval of Pius XII (AAS 36, 1944, 103) 220 I say, "untenable position," because they are forced to deny one or the other de fide teachings when they know that the Holy Ghost which guarantees the truth of de fide teachings cannot contradict himself. 221 Cf. Paragraph 50, "The Church in the Modern World," The Documents of Vatican II; for John Paul II's teaching on marriage see Wigand Siebel's Philosophie et théologie de Karol Wojtyla, SAKA: Bâle, Switzerland. 222 The Thomistic commentator Billuant has a pertinent discussion regarding this 3-fold baptism. 223 Most theologians hold that the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted at the time Christ was Baptized by John and the Blessed Trinity indicated its presence. 224 Martin Gwynne has discussed this issue in his Briton's Catholic Library, Letter No. 5. Some of the material in this essay is drawn from this source. It should be made clear that Mr. Gwynne's approval for this journal is not to be presumed, nor do the editors of this journal give their unequivocal support to the opinions of Mr. Gwynne. Thomas Hutchinson in his Desire and Deception explains away this episode by first telling us a miraculous fountain provided St. Alban with the water required for baptism, and then stating that St. Bede, "writing four centuries after the fact, using ancient documents, didn't miss somwthing." 225 Thomas Hutchinson explains this away by assuring us that if at the time of her martyrdom "she had truly not been baptized, it must be expected that someone would have done it while she lay dying." 226 Thomas Hutchinson informs us that St. Ambrose was using a political ploy, and that he made this statement in an "highly charged atmosphere of grief, fear, and popular anger surrounding the funeral." He then assures us that St. Ambrose in fact "knew" that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circumstances of the evnet, which presumably were bound up with the Emperor's mysterious death." 227 Published by B Herder and printed by Typographus Editor Pontificus. Needless to say, this text carries a Hihil Obstat and Imprimatur, dated 1911 in my edition. Hutchinson tells us that "St. Augustine appears at one point to have misread his old mentor's views." 228 Hagiography is the study of the lives of the saints. The Bollandists, branch of the Jesuits organized under the initial direction of Father Bolland, (with papal approval) have taken it as their special function to research the lives of the saints and provide official versions of both their acts and writings. 229 Enchiridion Patristicum, (811) 230 ibid, 1139 231 ibid, 2269. 232 Once again, Thomas Hutchinson assures us that St. Thomas Aquinas, failed to study St. Ambrose as carefully as he had studied Aristotle, and that in his teaching about Baptism of Desire he was plain and simply wrong. 233 Centiloquij, Tertia pars and De Sacramentorum virtute, Lib. VI. 234 As Mr. Gwynne points out, the original letter to which the pope was responding has been lost. The title 'priest' obviously was not applied to a person in holy orders and probably implies his 'priestly' act of sacrifice. The letter Apostolam Sedem written by Celestine II (1143- 1144) was sent to the Bishop of Cremona and is quoted in The Seraph, March, 1993. 235 Thomas Hutchinson assures us on hiis own authority that these quotations taken from Denzinger only represent "a private commiication regarding a prudential and disciplinary jusgment," and that "there is no question of the lack of infallibility of such a document." Now Denzinger is entitled "Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum." Is everything in Denzinger which Mr. Hutchinson doesn't agree with to be declared fallible and hence eroneous? 236 Section on Baptism - Bapteme d'apres les peres Grecs et Latins. 237 I am grateful to Bishop McKenna for directing me to this passage. 238 Father E. Hugueney, O.P. further explains: "Of those who are members of the Church, the elect will greatly outnumber the damned; and if we include as members of the Church all those who are hers in spirit by the baptism of desire, this immense number of elect will be very great indeed. Yet, we must not forget that, outside the Church, the chances of salvation are much less; this means that many pagans will probably lose their souls, because they are almost defenseless against the devils and their own passions." (L'Opinion traditionnelle sur le nombre des Elus" in La Revue Thomiste, 1933, pp. 217 and 533.) 239 How is it possible for a Catholic to deny tha authority of such theologians as Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Alphonse Liguori and Catherine of Sienna without declaring themselves "out of communion" with the Church? 240 I have in several places made reference to Thomas A. Hutchinson's defence of the position that there is no possibility of salvation without Baptism with water. One cannot dismiss the writings of the saints and the practice of the Church because of the reasons he offers. One could give other examples of where he suggests and insinuates that saints like St. Chrysostome or St. Louis IX fully agree with him. (Desire and Deception, ,Charlmagne Press, Arcadia) 241 Translated by roy Defarri, published by The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Mass., 1951