Ancient Roman Rite
1549 and 1552
Church of England
in English - 1969
Novus Ordo Rite
Synod Vatican 2 church
Being the seventh under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV, celebrated on the fifteenth day of July, MDLXIII .
The True and Catholic Doctrine, Touching the Sacrament of Order, Decreed and Published by the Holy Synod of Trent, in the Seventh Session, in Condemnation of the Errors of Our Time
On the Institution of the Priesthood of the New Law.
Sacrifice and Priesthood are, by the Ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the Holy Visible Sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that Church, a new, visible, and external Priesthood, into which the Old has been transformed. And the Sacred Scriptures show, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this Priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the Apostles, and their successors in the Priesthood, was the power delivered of Consecrating, Offering, and Administering His Body and Blood, as also of Forgiving and of Retaining Sins.
On the Seven Orders.
And whereas the ministry of so Holy a Priesthood Is a Divine thing; to the end that it might be exercised in a more worthy manner, and with greater veneration, it was suitable that, in the most well-ordered settlement of the church, there should be several and Diverse Orders of Ministers, to Minister to the Priesthood, by virtue of their Office; Orders so distributed as that those already marked with the Clerical Tonsure should ascend through the Lesser [Minor Orders] to the Greater [Major] Orders. For the Sacred Scriptures make open mention not only of Priests, but also of Deacons; and teach, in words the most weighty, what things are especially to be attended to in the Ordination thereof; and, from the very beginning of the Church, the names of the following Orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit those [in descending sequence] of Subdeacon, Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Door-keeper [Porter]; though these were not of equal rank: for the Subdeaconship is classed amongst the Greater [Major] Orders by the Fathers and Sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other Inferior [Minor] Orders.
That Order is truly and properly a Sacrament.
Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic Tradition, and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers, it is clear that Grace is conferred by Sacred Ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of Holy Church. For the Apostle says; I admonish thee that thou stir up the Grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love of sobriety.
On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination.
But, forasmuch as in the Sacrament of Order, as also in Baptism and Confirmation, [an Indelible] Character is imprinted, which can neither be effaced nor taken away; the Holy Synod with reason condemns the opinion of those, who assert that the Priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power; and that those who have once been rightly Ordained, can again become Laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the Word of God. And if any one affirm, that all Christians indiscriminately are Priests of the New Testament, or that they are all mutually endowed with an equal Spiritual power, he clearly does nothing but confound the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which is as an army set in array; as if, contrary to the Doctrine of Blessed Paul, all were Apostles, all Prophets, all Evangelists, all Pastors, all Doctors. Wherefore, the Holy Synod declares that, besides the Other Ecclesiastical Degrees, Bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles, principally belong to this Hierarchial Order; that they are placed, as the same Apostle says, by the Holy Ghost, to rule the Church of God; that they are superior to Priests; administer the Sacrament of Confirmation; Ordain the Ministers of the Church; and that they can perform very many other things; over which functions others of an Inferior Order have no power. Furthermore, the Sacred and Holy Synod teaches, that, in the Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and of the Other Orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the Ordination is invalid: yea rather doth it decree: that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door. These are the things which it hath seemed good to the Sacred Synod to teach the Faithful in Christ, in general terms, touching the Sacrament of Order. But It hath resolved to condemn whatsoever things are contrary thereunto, in express and specific Canons, in the manner following; in order that all men, with the help of Christ, using the Rule of Faith, may, in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, more easily be able to recognize and to hold Catholic Truth.
Canons on the Sacrament of Order
CANON I.--If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external Priesthood; or that there is not any power of Consecrating and Offering the True Body and Blood of the Lord, and of Forgiving and Retaining Sins; but only an Office and bare Ministry of Preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not Preach are not Priests at all; let him be anathema.
CANON II.--If any one saith, that, besides the Priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other Orders, both Greater [Major Orders] and Minor [Orders], by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the Priesthood; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that Order, or Sacred Ordination, is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or, that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in Ecclesiastical matters; or, that it is only a kind of Rite for choosing Ministers of the Word of God and of the Sacraments; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by Sacred Ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the Bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a Character [which is indelible] is not imprinted by that Ordination; or, that he who has once been a Priest, can again become a Layman; let him be anathema.
CANON V.--If any one saith, that the Sacred Unction which the Church uses in Holy Ordination, is not only not required, but is to be despised and is pernicious, as likewise are the other ceremonies of Order; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a Hierarchy by Divine Ordination instituted, consisting of Bishops, Priests, and Ministers; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that Bishops are not superior to Priests; or, that they have not the power of Confirming and Ordaining; or, that the power which they possess is common to them and to Priests; or, that Orders, conferred by them, without the consent, or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid; or, that those who have neither been rightly Ordained, nor sent, by Ecclesiastical and Canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments; let him be anathema.
any one saith, that the Bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman
Pontiff, are not legitimate and true Bishops, but are a human figment;
let him be anathema.
ANATHEMA: A thing or person struck by God’s malediction and intended for ruin. Cf. I Cor. 12:13; Rom. 9:3; Gal. l:8-9. Anathema, in actual Church discipline, is the term used for IPSO FACTO excommunication incurred by those denying a solemnly defined Truth, as is concluded principally from the dogmatic canons of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, (i.e. the Roman Catholic Council Vatican I). (Parente, Piolanti, Garofalo, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, “Anathema”.)
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
This Infallible Doctrinal and Theological Truth was taught by the Infallible Roman Catholic Pope Saint Celestine I:
Legem Credendi Lex Statuit Supplicandi. [The Liturgical form of prayer becomes the standard of Faith.]. (Pope Saint Celestine I [Saturday, September 10, 422 - Tuesday, July 27, 432]).This is sometimes shortened to simply Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: The Law of Praying is the Law of Believing. This simply means that you declare, by a public, exterior liturgical act of worship, both your own personal interior beliefs of your faith and your own personal interior worship of God, externally expressed in public worship ceremonies. Thus, you pray what you believe and you believe what you pray.
In case you have not yet had the opportunity to compare the three major Liturgical Rites for the Administration of the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood with each other, here are two links that will take you to that web page:
A side-by-side comparison in detail of the Ancient Roman Rite with the Novus Ordo Rite of the required Essential Form according to the Infallible Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, On the Sacrament of Order, by Pope Pius XII, on the first Sunday of Advent, November 30, 1947
Because the primary purpose and focus of all of the data on that web page, to which the two above links will take you, is to give you an opportunity to make your own comparisons and determinations regarding the actual TEXT each of the three different Liturgical Rites use for the Administration of The Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood, that web page is not intended to examine the specific reasons in detail concerning which one of these three Rites is the ONE and ONLY .VALID. Liturgical Rite which is used for the .VALID. Administration of The Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood.
But the problem for most of the Laity, and perhaps with even some members of the Clergy?, is that the necessary knowledge of Church History, of certain principles of Thomistic Theology, and of certain Infallible Documents, not only of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent - plus its Canons with their respective Censures of .automatic excommunication, but also of certain Roman Catholic Popes, especially regarding the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood, is something that the average Catholic does not know because the average Catholic has never been required to study any of these subjects in any real depth.
Apparently the required study of Thomistic Theology by Seminarians - future priests - has long ago been abanded in the .anti-Catholic. Satanic. Synod. Vatican 2. pseudo-church. of .automatically. excommunicated. Apostates. and. Modernist. Heretics, and .NEW. Theology. Heretics, along with some of the Infallible Documents of certain pre-Synod Vatican 2 Popes, and most especially the Infallible Canons and Decrees of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, each of which were Infallibly promulgated by the Roman Catholic Popes of that time period?
Thank you for reading the data on this web page and for your interest in this subject which is of extreme vital importance for every Catholic to know?
Because even IF it is very remotely possible that a Catholic could attend a .valid. Rite of Mass, but which .valid. Rite of the Traditional Catholic Mass is being attempted to be Offered by a LAYMAN, who was never.validly.Ordained to the Roman Catholic Priesthood, the extremely negative consequences for one's Immortal Soul should be very obvious?!
God Bless You!
Patriarch Jacobus Maria DeJesus, D.D.
As simple as it sounds, the actual context of the Administration of the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood is very important.
For example, is the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood “Administered” by one or more actors, whether on the stage, in a movie, a TV program, in a classroom, or in some other way?
But “context” can
also refer to whatever actions take place, which are found in the rubrics
(the actions) of a Liturgical Rite, along with any statements or expressions,
which are also found in the text (the words comprising the statements and/or
the expressions) of the actual Rite itself which mention, designate, and/or
otherwise clearly indicate, specific and special powers and Graces which
pertain to that Liturgical Rite, whether it is the Liturgical Rite for
Offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Traditional Catholic Rite, a.k.a. the
Ancient Roman Rite of Mass of the Catholic Church, or whether it is any
of the Liturgical Rites for the Administration of any of the Seven Sacraments,
which would include, of course, both the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood
and the Sacrament of the Episcopacy.
Theologians have a fancy term for this “context”. They call it “significatio ex adjunctis” which means:
“signification from the rest of the Rite and the Prayers around it”.More precisely .significatio ex adjunctis. specifically signifies the actual meaning of all of the rest the entire Rite itself which meaning is constituted by all of the other actions (rubrics) and other texts (Prayers) which constitute the rest of the Rite, each one of which other actions (rubrics) and other texts (Prayers) is consistent with all of the other actions (rubrics) and other texts (Prayers) which constitute the rest of the Rite, other than those actions (rubrics) and texts) (Prayers) which belong exclusively to the Proper Matter and Form per se of that specific Rite.
This .significatio ex adjunctis. is essential for the .validity. of each Sacrament, including the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood and the Sacrament of the Episcopacy. It is self-evident that .significatio ex adjunctis. is an essential Catholic principle of Traditional Catholic Sacramental Theology because it is a very basic, fundamental part of .validity. - part of the “sine qua non” - without which not - in other words, a Sacrament without it is not a .valid. Sacrament, and this includes the Sacrament of the Holy Priesthood and the Sacrament of the Episcopacy.
Perhaps it will be much easier to understand the concept of .significatio ex adjunctis. in the Liturgical Rite which is used for Offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Traditional Catholic Rite, a.k.a. the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a Sacrifice:
Proof # 1.
“We have an Altar [of Sacrifice], whereof they [the Jews] have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.” (Hebrews 13:10.)
“The Chalice of Benediction, which we Bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord?
[Here Saint Paul is making a direct, but guarded reference, to the Double Consecration during the Mass. The Christian Catholics at Corinth would have clearly understood what Saint Paul was saying in his Epistle to them in guarded words of secrecy because of the bloody persecutions of the Jews, via the Roman Empire.]For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?” (1 Corinthians 10:16-18.)
Saint Paul is explaining that the Altar of the New and Eternal Covenant, which is used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and upon which Altar Jesus Christ is immolated as the Infinite Victim by the Sacrificing Priest, is the completion and perfection of the Old Covenant of the Jews who had only an altar upon which their sacrificing priests only sacrificed animals.
Saint Paul is also speaking of the major difference between Holy Communion in which the Body and Blood of Christ is received whole and entire under the species of only bread, while the Jews are only able to eat of the animal sacrifices.
Proof # 2.
Roman Catholic Council of Trent
Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562
On the Sacrifice of the Mass
“Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Sacred and Holy, Ecumenical and General Synod of Trent - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein - to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect Faith and Doctrine touching the Great Mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the Holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, Teaches, Declares, and Decrees what follows, to be preached to the Faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a True and Singular Sacrifice.
On the institution of the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.... that He [Christ] might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a Visible Sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that Bloody Sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit...
He offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own Body and Blood) to be received by His Apostles, whom He then constituted Priests of the New Testament; and by those words, “Do this in commemoration of Me”, He commanded them and their successors in the Priesthood, to Offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught....
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this Divine Sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the Altar of the Cross [on Calvary]; the holy Synod teaches, that this Sacrifice is truly propitiatory.... the Victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of Priests, Who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different...
On the Canon of the Mass
And whereas it beseemeth, that Holy things be administered in a Holy manner, and of all Holy things this Sacrifice is the Most Holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently Offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the Sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain Holiness and Piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the Traditions of the Apostles....” (Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapters 1, 2, and 4; emphasis added.)
Proof # 3.
“CANON I. If any one saith, that in the Mass a true and real Sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be .anathema.
CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the Apostles Priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other Priests should offer His own Body and Blood; let him be .anathema.
CANON III. If any one saith, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a Propitiatory Sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be Offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be .anathema.
CANON IV. If any one saith, that, by the Sacrifice of the Mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most Holy Sacrifice of Christ consummated on the Cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be .anathema.
CANON VI. If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be .anathema.
CANON VIII. If any one saith, that Masses, wherein the Priest alone communicates Sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be .anathema.” (Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8.)
Therefore, except for the Rite for the Double Consecration itself, which is found in the Canon of the Mass, one should also expect to find references in other places in the Rite used for Offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Traditional Catholic Mass, the fact that the Mass is a Sacrifice.
Proof # 1.
In the pre-Vatican 2 small, hand-size missals for the Laity, which had the prayers for the Mass, not only were these prayers in an approved English translation of the Latin, but some missals also had the Latin text as well, usually with the Latin text being printed on the left side page and the English translation of the Latin being printed on the right side page, along with some basic rubrics and brief explanations also in English.
In what were the very popular Saint Joseph Sunday Missal and the Saint Joseph Daily Missal, at the top of the page printed in English was a drawing of a Catholic Priest and an Altar Server walking into the Sanctuary by the Altar which was fastened to the back of the wall. Under the caption:
“Beginning of Mass”, in red it says: “At the foot of the Altar....”In the Saint Mary, My Every Day Missal and Heritage, on the page with the English translation, in red it says:
“Standing at the foot of the Altar steps....”In the 1913 edition of Blessed Sacrament Book by Rev. F. Lasance, in the section entitled “Mass Devotions”, one finds “The Ordinary of the Mass” under which one reads:
“The priest, standing at the foot of the altar-steps, and signing himself with the sign of the holy cross begins, the acolytes or other ministers responding”.This particular book has the Latin text on the left side of the same page on which the English translation is on the right side of the same page.
Another popular Prayer Book in those days was The Key of Heaven. Some people liked it because it was a tiny book which could easily be put into one’s pocket or purse. In the one before Us with the date of the Imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, being August 8th, 1924, it is interesting to note that it gives the total number of copies of this Prayer Book which were printed: 370,000.
Just as with the Blessed Sacrament Book of Father Lasance, this book also has the Latin text on the left side of the same page on which the English translation is on the right side of the same page.
Under “The Ordinary of the Holy Mass”, under which is “Mass of the Catechumens”, is:
“Preparatory Prayers at the Foot of the Altar”. “The Priest bowing down at the foot of the Altar, makes the sign of the Cross from his forehead to his breast, and says:”By comparison, a much larger hand-size Maryknoll Missal has the Prayers in both Latin and English on either side of the same page. At the top of the first page is printed:
“Preparatory Prayers, At the foot of the Altar.”So the point is this, that in all of the pre-Vatican 2 small, hand-size missals for the Laity, which had the prayers for the Mass, the first prayer which the Priest said, immediately after the prayers that go with the Sign of the Cross, was this one:
“Introibo ad Altare Dei. I will go unto the Altar of God”Therefore, not only do all of the pre-Vatican 2 small, hand-size missals mention, in one way or another, the fact that the Priest stands at the Foot of the Altar when he begins the Mass. And that the second Prayer specifically states that the Priest “will go unto the Altar of God”.
In other words, there is an Altar on which the Priest will make a Sacrifice because the primary purpose of an Altar is to make a sacrifice upon it. Who makes this sacrifice - a priest, because, by definition, a priest is one who offers sacrifice, as you already know from reading the Old Testament.
During the Offertory of the Mass, there is what is called the “Epiklesis”, which is also spelled “Epiclesis”, which comes from the Greek word “epikleo” wich means “I call”.
The “Epiklesis”, a.k.a. “Epiclesis”, is a Prayer in which the Sacrificing Priest invokes God the Holy Ghost to Sanctify the Sacrifice which he will Offer later during the Canon of the Mass at the Double Consecration. Here is the Prayer of invocation to God the Holy Ghost said by the Sacrificing Priest:
“Veni, Sanctificátor Omnípotens Ætérne Deus, et Béne + dic hoc Sacrifícium Tuo Sancto Nómini præparátum. Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty, Eternal God, and Bless + this Sacrifice prepared for Thy Holy Name.” (Missale Romanum, Prayer Veni, Sanctificator)This means that in this Prayer, the “Veni, Sanctificator”, the Sacrificing Priest is anticipating what he is going to do on the Altar of Sacrifice during the Double Consecration which will happen some minutes later in the Canon of the Mass.
Proof # 3.
During the Canon of the Mass, the third Prayer after the Transubstantiation, which is effected by the Double Consecration, is the Supplices Te Rogamus. In this Prayer, the Sacrificing Priest asks the Holy Angel to take the Infinite Victim, Whom he had just Sacrificed, God the Son, Jesus Christ, from that Altar of Sacrifice on the earth to that Altar of Sacrifice of God in Heaven before the Most Holy Trinity:
“Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, jube hæc perferri per manus Sancti Angeli Tui in Sublime Altare tuum, in conspectu Divinæ Majestatis Tuæ: ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione, Sacrosanctum Filii Tui, Cor + pus, et San + guinem sumpserimus, + omni Benedictione cælesti et Gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these [Sacrificial] Offerings to be carried by the hands of Thy Holy Angel to Thy Altar on High, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, so that as many of us as shall, by partaking at this Altar,receive the Most Sacred Bo + dy and Blo + od of Thy Son, + may be filled with every heavenly Blessing and Grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.” (Missale Romanum, Prayer Supplices Te Rogamus).
Shortly before the Last Gospel, the Sacrificing Priest says:
“Ite, Missa est.”
NO, it does NOT mean: “Go, you are dismissed.”
So exactly what does “Ite, Missa est” mean?
The Angelic Doctor explains it this way:
“The Deacon on festival days dismisses the people at the end of the Mass, by saying: Ite, Missa est, that is, Ite, [Go,] the Victim [of the Mass, i.e. Christ] has been sent [Missa est] to God through the Angel, so that it may be accepted by God.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P. [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 83, Article 4, Reply to Objection 9.)In other words, the correct theological translation of Ite, Missa est in English is:
“Go, the Victim of the Mass [i.e. Christ] has been sent [Missa est] to God through the hands of His Holy Angel [i.e. Saint Michael the Archangel] so that the Infinite, Perfect Victim [i.e. Christ] may be accepted by God.”Therefore, correctly understanding what the Ite, Missa est really says, completes the thought first expressed in the Liturgical Mass Prayer Supplices Te Rogamus, the third prayer after the Transubstantiation which is effected by the Double Consecration:
“We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these [Sacrificial] Offerings to be carried by the hands of Thy Holy Angel to Thy Altar on High, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty...”In summary, each of the four proofs, given above, although they are not an actual part of the Double Consecration, nevertheless by their references to Altar, to Sacrifice, to [Sacrificial] Offerings, and to Victim, are all consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church that the Mass is a Sacrifice and refer to this fact both before the Victim is Sacrificed at the Double Consecration, and also after the Victim has been Sacrificed at the Double Consecration.
These above four distinct proofs clearly establish the existence of the “significatio ex adjunctis” during the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Traditional Mass Offered according to the pre-Vatican 2 Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. But there is one more proof that may not be quite as obvious?
Proof # 5.
In addition, because this is a very frequent question, it needs to be answered at this time. The process of doing this will also take us to the fifth proof for the “Significatio ex Adjunctis” in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Most Catholic do not understand that because they are told to “Go” (Ite), since a theological translation of the Ite, Missa est is:
“Go, the Victim of the Mass [i.e. Christ] has been sent [Missa est] to God through the hands of His Holy Angel [i.e. Saint Michael the Archangel] so that the Infinite, Perfect Victim [i.e. Christ] may be accepted by God.”,
why is it that they still have to continue to stay because the Mass is obviously not over?
Why is the Mass not over?
For two reasons.
1. To receive the Last Blessing.While most people can understanding being Blessed at the end of the Mass, most people do not understand why there needs to be a Last Gospel, after all, there is already a Gospel after the Epistle before the Offertory.
2. To remain until after the Last Gospel has been read.
Historically, the teachings of Jesus Christ were attacked even before Christ was crucified!
Remember how Christ taught the Jews about the wonderful Mystery of the Most Blessed Sacrament and their reaction?
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from Heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is My flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.... Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? ..... After this many of His disciples went back; and walked no more with Him. Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” (John 6:48-55; 6:61; 6:67-70.)Down through the centuries, the Catholic Church has suffered from the false teachings of heretics who are, therefore, not lovers of the Truth.
Most Catholics might have some foggy recollection of the Arian Heresy of the 4th Century, but fewer Catholics know either very little, or nothing at all, about some other heretics known as the Gnostics. The Gnostics, called the “wise”, or “learned”, are followers of Gnosticism which teaches the heresy of Dualism, that there is a “good god” and a “bad god”, and that all matter is evil, including the human body.
Gnosticism also infected various groups of other heretics, e.g. the Manichæans, of which Augustine had been a member until his Conversion. Father Saint Justin Martyr [b. Sichem, a.k.a. Neapolis, or Flavia Neapolis, modern day Nablus, Palestine c. 100 A.D. - d. Rome, Italy c. 165 A.D.] warned the Catholics he knew about Gnosticism and reminded them about “the Resurrection of the Body”.
The 3rd Century Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, is considered to be the founder of the Paulicians, a.k.a. Paulucians, a.k.a. Pavlikians, a.k.a. Paulikianoi. They flourished between 650 A.D. and 872 A.D. in Armenia and in the Eastern District of the Byzantine Empire. The Dualistic Paulucians were quasi-Gnostics and quasi-Manichæans.
In the 11th Century one of the progeny of the older Dualistic Paulucians was the Dualistic Patarines of Milan. Other descendants of the older Paulucians also included the Dualistic Cathars. The Cathars also had some of its roots extending back to older heresies such as Manichæanism and Docetism. The Heretical Dualism of Catharism, which was also heavily influenced by the Dualistic Heresy of Bogomilism, spawned the Heresy of Albigensian and intertwined itself in Milan with the Dualistic Patarines.
From the 11th Century through at least the 14th Century, Dualism was all the rage in various countries in Western Europe, most especially in Northern Italy around Milan, and Southern France.
Saint Dominic and the Order of Preachers had some success against it by argument and also by preaching the Rosary in Southern France against the Dualism of the Cathar-Albigensian Heresy. Simon de Montfort opposed it by an armed Crusade which checked it for a time. But it was not destroyed so that one finds it popping up again with the rise of Puritanism which denied that God the Son became a human man and suffered and died on the Cross and rose from the dead.
Needless to say, the spread of these heresies, especially of Catharism and of its heretical colleagues, was of major concern for the Catholic Church. Not only that, but, as time went on, it seemed as if more and more of the Catholic Clergy were becoming infected, especially with Catharism - at least some of whom become secret Cathars - which was a major problem and concern.
Because of its Dualism, all of these heresies not only denied the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, but they also denied Transubstantiation during the Double Consecration in the Mass, because, remember, Dualist Heretics consider all matter to be evil.
Under such conditions, it was very difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the Mass Celebrant, whether a Bishop or a Priest, was a secret Cathar or a secret Albigensian Heretic.
And so it came about that in 1285 A.D. Mass Celebrants - Catholic Bishops and Priests - were required to recite the first fourteen verses of the first chapter of the Gospel of Saint John as the Last Gospel in order to certify that they, the Mass Celebrants, in a very public and very clear way, do in fact believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Futhermore, by the recitation the Last Gospel (John 1:1-14), the Mass Celebrants would thereby also publicly affirm and ratify all that they did during that Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Rite of Mass, most especially that they really and truly properly effected Transubstantiation during the Double Consecration.
But this also means that each Mass Celebrant, whether a Bishop or a Priest, publicly attests to the fact that he is not a Cathar and/or Albigensian Heretic.
Because since both the Dualistic Cathar and Albigensian Heretics deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ by claiming that Jesus Christ is not God the Son Incarnate in the flesh, but only a finite man, which is something that is obviously contrary to the explicit Divinely Revealed Teachings of Saint John the Apostle in his Epistles, and most especially in the beginning of his Gospel, of which chapter one, verses one to fourteen, compose the Last Gospel of the Mass, it would not be possible for them to publicly read John 1:1-14 because, for a Dualist Heretic to do this, would be to deny his heretical belief that Jesus Christ is only a mere man and not God Incarnate.
For example, Saint John uses the words et Verbum caro factum est (and the Word was made flesh) (John 1:14). Based upon the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi ( the law of praying is the law of believing, or you believe what you pray and you pray what you believe), anyone who recites this Last Gospel gives public testimony to the fact that he, the Mass Celebrant, a Bishop or a Priest, does in fact believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Eternal Logos or Divine Word of God, as Saint John so clearly teaches in the very first verse of his Gospel saying: In the beginning was the Word (i.e. God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
But Cathar and Albigensian Heretics can not truly say the words: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
Neither can such Heretics say: And the Word was made flesh (John 1:14).
Nor, can they genuflect as they say these words. Therefore, their inability, or today with their modern-day descendants - their refusal - to do these things publicly reveals to all present that they are in fact a Cathar and/or an Albigensian Heretic!
Because the beginning of the Gospel of Saint John is used for the Last Gospel, and since it clearly teaches the Divinity of Jesus Christ in several places, the modern-day “born-again” Cathar and Albigensian Heretics who are Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests do not say this Last Gospel and thereby automatically admit they are heretics since such Clergy who are Orthodox in their Faith (“Orthodox” should not be confused with the Eastern Rite Orthodox), never have a problem in reciting this Last Gospel and in genuflecting at the words et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh) (John 1:14).
No wonder the born-again Dualist Heretics saw to it that John 1:1-14 - the Last Gospel in the Traditional Catholic Mass of the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Church - was eliminated, thrown out, and forever definitely dropped from the Mass - effective on Sunday, March 7, 1965!
Therefore, here is the fifth example in the Holy Sacrifice of the Traditional Catholic Mass of the Ancient Roman Rite of the “significatio ex adjunctis” which perfectly completes all of the required previous significations of everything prior to John 1:1-14 in the entire Mass Rite itself, beginning with the “Introibo ad Altare Dei. I will go unto the Altar of God” at the very beginning of the Mass in the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, and now concluding with John 1:1-14 as the last Prayer of the Sacrificial Mass.
Please note that it is because of their public and vocal recitation, in their normal volume of their speaking voice in reading the Last Gospel - John 1:1-14, that all Mass Celebrants thereby publicly affirm, declare, avow, state, asseverate, and ratify everything that they did during the entire Holy Sacrifice of the Traditional Catholic Rite of Mass was, without any doubts, a perfect and total 100% adherence to all of the rubrics and Prayers found in the pre-1944 Missale Romanum.
In other words, not only did they make a proper and correct use of this Traditional Catholic Rite of Mass in general, but specifically, that they used the Proper Matter, Form, and Intention to really and truly effect Transubstantiation during the Double Consecration, and that by their public genuflection at the words et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh) of John 1:14, they are not heretics, whether public or secret, including, but not limited to the fact that they are not Dualist Heretics, or any other kind of Heretics, which would include, but not be limited to any and/or all of these Heresies, or of any other, including: Gnosticism, Arianism, Manichæanism, Docetism, Paulucianism, Bogomilism, Catharism, Patarinism, Albigensianism, Protestantism, Modernism, or the NEW Theology.
In conclusion to this brief examination of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the context of the “significatio ex adjunctis”, the same can also be said of each of the Seven Sacraments, although because of its ultimate necessity, Baptism is the only Rite which can have the “significatio ex adjunctis” ceremonies added later which is called “the supplying of ceremonies”.
To use a term from Thomistic Theology, the .significatio ex adjunctis. belongs to what the Angelic Doctor tells us “belong to the integrity of the expression”, which not only applies to the exact Form of Words itself for the Double Consecration in the Mass,
“I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words ‘This is the chalice of My blood’ alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s Blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.” (Father Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., “Summa Theologica”, Part III, Question 78, Article 3, Conclusion; emphasis added.)but which principle should also be applied, not only to the exact Form of Words for the Administration of each of the Seven Sacraments, but also to the entire Liturgical Rite, both for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and also for each of the Seven Sacraments.
Pope Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci
[Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903]
Encyclical Apostolicæ Curæ
Declaration of the.Invalidity.of Anglican Orders
Promulgated Friday, September 18, 1896
Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Apostolicæ Curæ, teaches what the Proper Matter, Form, and Intention are what are required for the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, primarily for the Priesthood and the Episcopacy.
Pope Leo XIII mentions Pope Julius III, Giovanni Maria Ciocchi Del Monte [Tuesday, February 7, 1550 - Wednesday, March 23, 1555] and Pope Paul IV, Gian Pietro Carafa [Monday, May 23, 1555 - Tuesday, August 18, 1559].
“9. To all rightly considering these matters it will not be difficult to understand why, in the Letters of Julius III issued to the Apostolic Legate on March 8, 1554, there is a distinct mention, first of those who, rightly and lawfully promoted, were to be retained in their Orders; and then of others who, not promoted to Sacred Orders, might be promoted if they were found to be worthy and fitting subjects. For it is clearly and definitely noted, as indeed was the case, that there were two classes of men: the first those who had really received Sacred Orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII, or, if after it and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic rite; the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could not be “promoted”, since they had received an ordination which was null and void. And that the mind of the Pope was this, and nothing else, is clearly confirmed by the Letter of the said Legate (January 29, 1555), sub-delegating his faculties to the Bishop of Norwich. Moreover, what the Letters of Julius III themselves say about freely using the Pontifical faculties, even on behalf of those who had received their consecration minus rite and not according to the accustomed form of the Church, is to be especially noted. By this expression those only could be meant who had been consecrated according to the Edwardine rite, since besides it and the Catholic form there was then no other rite in England.
“10. This becomes even more clear when we consider the Legation which, on the advice of Cardinal Pole, the Sovereign Princes, Philip and Mary, sent to the Pope in Rome in the month of February, 1555 the royal ambassadors: three men “most illustrious and endowed with every virtue”, of whom one was Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Ely. They were charged to inform the Pope more fully regarding the religious condition of the country and especially to beg that he would ratify and confirm what the Legate had been at pains to effect, and had succeeded in effecting, towards the reconciliation of the Kingdom with the Church. For this purpose all of the necessary written evidence and the pertinent parts of the new Ordinal were submitted to the Pope. The Legation having been splendidly received, and their evidence having been “diligently discussed” by several of the Cardinals, “after mature deliberation” Paul IV issued his Bull “Praeclara Carissimi” on June 20 of that same year. In this, while giving full force and approbation to that which Cardinal Pole had done, it is ordered in the matter of the Ordination (rite) as follows:
Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by any one but a Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again.“11. But who those Bishops not validly and lawfully ordained were had been made sufficiently clear by the foregoing documents and the faculties used in the said matter by the Legate; those, namely, who have been promoted to the Episcopate, as others to other Orders, not according to the accustomed (traditional) form of the Church, or, as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of Norwich, the form and intention of the Church not having been observed. These were certainly those promoted according to the new form of rite, to the examination of which the Cardinals specially deputed had given their careful attention. Neither should the passage much to the point in the same Pontifical Letter be overlooked where, together with others needing dispensation, are enumerated those who had obtained as well Orders as benefices nulliter et de facto. For to obtain orders nulliter means the same as by an act both null and void, that is, invalid, as the very meaning of the word and as common usage require. This is especially clear when the word is used in the same way about Orders as about “ecclesiastical benefices”, which, by the undoubted teaching of the sacred canons, were clearly null if given with any vitiating defect.
“12. Moreover, when some doubted as to who, according to the mind of the Pontiff, could be called and considered bishops “validly and lawfully ordained”, the said Pope shortly after that, on October 30 (1555), issued a further Letter in the form of a [Papal] Brief and said:
“We, wishing to remove the doubt and to provide opportunely for the peace of conscience of those who during the schism were promoted to Orders, by expressing more clearly the mind and the intention which We had in the aforesaid Letter, declare that only those Bishops and Archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church cannot be said to have been validly and lawfully ordained”.
“13. Unless this declaration had applied to the actual case in England, that is to say, to the Edwardine Ordinal, the Pope would certainly have done nothing by this last Letter for the removal of doubt and the restoration of peace of conscience. Further, it was in this sense that the Legate understood the documents and commands of the Apostolic See, and duly and conscientiously obeyed them; and the same was done by Queen Mary and by the others who helped her to restore religion and Catholic institutions to their former state.
Invariable Practice of the Holy See
“14. The authority of Julius III and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome. In the observance of this practice we have a proof directly affecting the matter in hand. For, if by any chance, doubt should remain as to the true sense in which these Pontifical documents are to be understood, the principle holds good that “[the ancient historical] Custom is the best interpreter of law.” Since in the Church it has ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrament of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have silently acquiesced, and tolerated such a custom. But not only did the Apostolic See tolerate this practice, but approved and sanctioned it as often as any particular case arose which called for its judgement in the matter.
“15. We adduce two facts of this kind out of many which have from time to time been submitted to the Supreme Council of the Holy Office. The first was (in 1684) of a certain French Calvinist, and the other (in 1704) of John Clement Gordon; both of whom had received their Orders according to the Edwardine ritual. In the first case, after a searching investigation, the Consultors, not a few in number, gave in writing their answers or as they call it, their vota. The rest unanimously agreed with their conclusion, “for the invalidity of the Ordination,” and only on account of reasons of opportuneness did the Cardinals deem it well to answer with a dilata (viz., not to formulate the conclusion at the moment). The same documents were called into use and considered again in the examination of the second case. Additional written statements of opinion were also obtained from Consultors, and the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne and of Douai were likewise asked for their opinion. No safeguard which wisdom and prudence could suggest to ensure the thorough sifting of the question was neglected.
Decree of Clement XI and Its Importance
“16. Here it is important to observe that, although Gordon himself, whose case it was, and some of the Consultors, had adduced, among the reasons which went to prove the invalidity, the Ordination of Parker, according to the account then current, in the delivery of the decision this reason was altogether set aside, as documents of incontestable authenticity prove. Nor, in pronouncing the decision, was weight given to any other reason than the “defect of form and intention”. In order that the judgment concerning this form might be more certain and complete, precaution was taken that a copy of the Anglican Ordinal should be submitted to examination, and that with it should be collated the Ordination forms gathered together from the various Eastern and Western rites.
“17. Then Clement XI himself, with the unanimous vote of the Cardinals concerned, on the Feria V, [Thursday] April 17, 1704, decreed:
John Clement Gordon shall be ordained from the beginning and unconditionally to all the Orders, even Sacred Orders, and chiefly of Priesthood, and in case he has not been confirmed, he shall first receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.“18. It is important to bear in mind that this judgement was not based merely on the omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a case, according to the established custom, the direction would have been to repeat the Ordination conditionally. Still more important is it to note that the judgement of the Pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations-so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norma [norm].
The Question Already Definitely Settled
“19. Hence it must be clear to everyone that the controversy lately revived had been already definitely settled by the Apostolic See, and that it is to the insufficient knowledge of these documents that we must, perhaps, attribute the fact that any Catholic writer should have considered it still an open question. But, as We stated at the beginning, there is nothing We so deeply and ardently desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity. Wherefore, We ordered that the Anglican Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most carefully examined.
The Anglican Ordinal
“20. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of a Sacrament, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, usually called the “matter and form”. 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 whole 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”. And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Orders, the “matter” of which, in so far as We have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confirmation. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly Ordination namely: “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the Sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium), or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Session 23, On the Sacrament of Orders, Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Session 22, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).
“21. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest”. But, this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining. 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 them to be insufficient for the purpose in 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 in the Catholic Rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
“22. The same holds good regarding Episcopal Consecration. For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a Bishop”, added at a later period, but even these, as We shall presently state, cannot be regarded in the same way as if they were in a Catholic Rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it also, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium....
But the Episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Orders and constitutes the Priesthood 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 Orders 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, the Episcopate can in no way 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 Eucharistic Sacrifice.
The Mind and
Aim of Those
Whom Composed the Anglican [Edwardine] Ordinal
“23. 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. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently known as to the spirit of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church, as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects, and as to the end they had in view. Being fully aware of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between lex orandi, lex credendi [the law of praying is the law of believing], they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form.
“Thus, in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood, 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 entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
“24. In this way, the native character - or spirit, as it is called - of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Now, if vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient, seeing that it remained essentially the same. Vainly did those who, from the time of Charles I onwards, endeavor to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, make some additions to the Ordinal; vainly also have a small section of the Anglican body, formed in recent times, contended that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, We affirm, have been, and are, made in vain. And, for this further reason-that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot have the same sense they possess in the Catholic Rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Orders 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. The words “for the office and work of a Priest or Bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
Catholic Doctrine of Intention
“26. With this inherent “defect of form” is joined the “defect of intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by the very fact to do [intendisse] what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic Rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
Decision of the
Holy Office and
The Final Decree of Pope Leo XIII
“27. All these matters have been long and carefully considered by Us and by Our Venerable Brethren, the Judges of the Supreme Council, of whom it has pleased Us to call a special meeting upon the Feria V, the 16th day of July last, upon the solemnity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. They with one accord agreed that the question laid before them had been already adjudicated with full knowledge of the Apostolic See, and that this renewed discussion and examination of the issues had only served to bring out more clearly the wisdom and accuracy with which that decision had been made. Nevertheless, We deemed it well to postpone a decision in order to afford time, both to consider whether it would be fitting or expedient that We should make a fresh authoritative declaration upon the matter, and humbly to pray for a fuller measure of Divine guidance. Then, considering that this matter of discipline, although already decided, had been by certain persons, for whatever reason, recalled into discussion, and that thence it might follow that a pernicious error would be fostered in the minds of many who might suppose that they possessed the Sacrament and effects of Orders, where these are nowise to be found, it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce Our judgment.
“28. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”
Historical Facts Continued
Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli
[Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]
Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis
On the Sacrament of Order
First Sunday of Advent, November 30, 1947
4. ......It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the Traditio Instrumentorum is not necessary for the .validity. of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.
5. .... In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the Matter is the First Imposition of hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same Imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last Imposition to which are attached the words: “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.” And the Form consists of the words of the Preface, of which the following are essential and therefore required for .validity:
Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.Grant, We beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the Spirit of Holiness, so that he may persevere in this Office, which is next to Ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.
Remember that .Significatio ex Adjunctis. means “signification from the rest of the Rite and the Prayers around it”.
Pope Leo XIII clearly has this in mind where he writes in part:
“Thus, in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood, 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 entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.Notice that Pope Leo XIII clearly states that “in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the Sacrifice, of Consecration, of the Priesthood, and of the Power of Consecrating and Offering Sacrifice, but... every trace of these things.... was deliberately removed and struck out.”
24. In this way, the native character - or spirit, as it is called - of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. (Pope Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci [Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903], Encyclical Apostolicæ Curæ, Declaration of the Invalidity of Anglican Orders, Promulgated Friday, September 18, 1896, ¶ 23 - 24; emphasis added.)
Furthermore, Pope Leo XIII calls this fact “the native character - or spirit - of the Ordinal”, which is to say the Liturgical Rite for the Administration of the Sacraments of the Priesthood and the Episcopacy, “clearly manifests itself”.
So, what is this “native character - or spirit - of” the Rite itself called? It should be self-evident that the answer is: The .significatio ex adjunctis, which means the “native character”, or “signification” which is found in the rest of the entire Rite.
This “native character - or spirit - of” the Rite itself also includes all of the additional Prayers which are to be found in the Rite.
In the Sacraments of the Holy Priesthood and the Episcopacy, what are the primary examples of “native character - or spirit - of” the Rite itself - the .significatio ex adjunctis. of the Rites used for the Sacraments of the Holy Priesthood and the Episcopacy?
Pope Leo XIII states that the primary examples of the .significatio ex adjunctis. of the Rites for the Sacraments of the Holy Priesthood and the Episcopacy are a “clear mention of the Sacrifice, of Consecration, of the Priesthood, and of the Power of Consecrating and Offering Sacrifice”.
For those of you who would like to compare the primary examples of the .significatio ex adjunctis. of the Rites for the Sacraments of the Holy Priesthood, We suggest you make your comparisons by going to this web page for the Holy Priesthood which provides the complete text for each one:significatio ex adjunctis. of the Rites for the Sacraments of the Holy Episcopacy, We suggest you make your comparisons by going to this web page for the Holy Episcopacy:
The many differences, not only in regard to the .significatio ex adjunctis, per se, but also in regard to the other major important differences of these very important Liturgical Rites, for the Priesthood and the Episcopacy, within the context of the important issue of .validity, should thereupon become very clear, including the unquestionable .validity. of the Pontificale Romanum, 1891 Edition, of the unchangeable Ancient Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, and the .invalidity. of the other two liturgical rites of two other, very different, churches. Prove it to yourselves and to your very own personal satisfaction!
Thank You for Reading.
God Bless You!
“These latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore, We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most Sacred Duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our Office” (Roman Catholic Pope Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, Sunday, September 8, 1907, ¶ 1; emphasis added.)
“And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
“Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the Truth?” (Galatians 4:16).
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the Truth, but will be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
“But though We, or an angel from Heaven, preach to you a Gospel besides that which We have preached to you; let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8).
“Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same forever” (Hebrews 13:8-9).
“With the Father of light there is no change nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:17).
“God is Truth”. (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 16, Article 5; Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 93, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 60.)
“Truth knows no distinction of persons. Therefore, he who speaks the Truth is invincible, dispute with whom he may” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Commentary on Job, Chapter 13, Lesson 2).
“If people are scandalized at the Truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the Truth” (Saint Gregory I, the Great, [Friday, September 3, 590 - Monday, March 12, 604], Homily on Ezechiel, 7; cited by Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 43, Article 7).
“But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed... let them be anathema [i.e. automatically excommunicated]” (Fourth Œcumenical Council, the First Council of Chalcedon, Session 5, Sunday, October 22, 451 A.D.).
“We have only one doctrine; this is the faith of the Doctors of the Church; this is the Faith of the Holy Apostles; this is the Faith which has saved the world.” (Fourth Œcumenical Council, the First Council of Chalcedon [Sunday, October 8, 451 A.D. - Wednesday, November 1, 451 A.D.])
“If anyone rejects all ecclesiastical Tradition, either written or unwritten: let him be anathema.” (Seventh Œcumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicæa [Thursday, September 24, 787 A.D. - Friday, October 23, 787 A.D.], Anathema 4).