Conspiracy theorist, in some cases, assume a worst-case scenario where an inexact form (that is validly approved by a valid magisterium of the Church) can result in an invalid sacrament as opposed to only possibly weakening its result. I not being a theologian do not have the expertise to say one way or another, and have tried to provide cites for both the argument that the inexact form that ordinations/consecrations causes invalid sacraments and that the particular new form is not invalid if only due to the fact that a valid magisterium has approved it, this being due to the indefectibility of the Church. In this worst case, as we shall see in the third Part of this blog “Repairing the Church,” indefectibility could conceivably mean at least a part of the church is not wrong and that part will need to be leveraged by the faithful, both laity and clergy to salvage the church or risk the end of the world since our lord promised that “the jaws of hell will not prevail against it.” The world would end before Satan would actually completely destroy the church or God would have lied which is not possible.
The Eucharist is looked at by most people as the most important sacrament, but just a little bit of thought will reveal this is actually not the case. The most important sacrament is episcopal holy orders. Now, I would agree that the Eucharist is the most efficacious sacrament for the salvation of each and every human being who wishes to enjoy the beatific vision for eternity, but the fact is, without bishops, no new priests or bishops can be made and without them there is no Eucharist or confession so that we can be worthy both to receive the Eucharist and attain heaven.
The problem I see might possibly be effecting the church, and I am no theologian just a guy with common sense who reads a lot and believes that the supernatural component of Catholicism is actually efficacious in this world – i.e. events or changes made in the spiritual world show concrete results in this one. If we assume my beliefs to be true, the current priestly and episcopal sex abuse scandals may find their origins in supernatural problems, to wit, ineffective priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations. These were changed, along with most of the rest of the sacraments, in subtle but important ways from the old Latin rites by pope Paul VI. Fortunately, or for some reading this, unfortunately, it dictates the organization that offers the sacrifice of the Tridintine Latin Mass (henceforth refered to as the TLM) I attend and only the TLM, based on the fact it was mandated by the encyclical Quo Primum, which was put into effect in perpetuity by Pius V, and which no earthly authority can prevent them from offering.
The most troubling fact is not that the words of the mass were changed to the vernacular from Latin but that the actual form (the words) were changed, i.e. not translated correctly from the Latin text, adding something that was not in the original Latin text or simply omitting something that was in the original Latin text. Now there might be something special about these words being in Latin, which I will cover in depth in another blog, but the fact is that the new form is not specific enough. Michael Davies, in the comparison of the rites in his book The Order of Melchisedech shows that “. . . there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins,. . .”
In the old Latin rite of priestly ordinations (and throughout these blogs on “Repairing the Church” the words from the old latin rite will be shown in the translations I found from various sources), the priests duties were clearly spelled out and part of the old rite translates as follows “For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.” . . . “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.” . . . ” Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing. That whatsoever they may bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” . . . “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.” . . . “receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” . . . “The blessing of God Almighty, the Father , the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.” As I understand none of this is mandatory in the new rite.
So as a laymen, unschooled in theology from an academic setting, why am I qualified to question the rewording of a religious rite? If I was writing in 1970 when the new rite had only been in existence for a few years, I would be hard pressed, (though things were already showing at that time), to show evidence that would have the gravity to indicate conclusively that their might be a problem, but not so today, in 2018.
Even in 1970s the seminaries were failing to fill as they did just a decade earlier and priests were leaving the priesthood. Today, I point to the sex abuse scandals as proof, at least to me, there is a supernatural deficiency in the church. As usual there will be those that will say that it is because of priestly celibacy. So in the roaring 20’s, where there was so much drunken debauchery going on, why did the church not have the problems it has today?
The root of the problem, in my opinion, is not mainly the priestly ordinations but the episcopal consecrations. Because the Eucharist is so visible it was saved for all faithful through legitimately ordained priests by a lay person by the name of Patrick Henry Omlor who noticed the mistranslation from the Latin and in response wrote the book “Questioning the Validity of the masses using the new, all-English Canon.” This prompted the proper translation of the form of the consecration of the Eucharist from the Latin. The English translation was not designed to preserve the words of Christ passed down and put together through tradition for a millennium and a half and which gave rise to all the saints up to Padre Pio and Mother Teresa, but in changing the words of Christ from “for the many” to “for all,” to push the heretical notion that all men are saved and that no one goes to hell. Our Lord Himself said the road to perdition is wide and many will go to hell (Matthew 7:13-14).
Unfortunately, the translation of the priestly rite also had a defect which was a change from the proper form according to Pope Pius XII in his apostolic Constitution called “Sacramentum Ordinis” who identified the proper form by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority. This time modernist instead of replacing two words simply took out two words: “so that” altering it just enough to possibly make priestly ordinations invalid. Since probably only few saintly people can see into the spiritual world and we cannot, by just looking at them, tell if they are validly ordained (leading to being saintly) would you not think God would purposely leave the faithful some way to tell ordinations were not valid? Would a previous pope saying a particular form (the words used to produce the grace in the sacrament and make it a valid instance of the sacrament) was the efficacious form not be a surefire way to know that if this form were to be changed the sacrament might no longer be efficacious. If this is not enough to suspect a problem with current clerics ordained or consecrated under the new form for ordination/consecration, I think the current string of child abuse and seminarian abuse should be a red flag or indicator that somethings is wrong such that we no longer have priest, bishops and even cardinals (think Cardinal McCarrick) that classify as holy.
God will always leave us solid tools for the reasonable man or woman to find and follow the faith. It is that man’s or woman’s responsibility to raise the alarm, question even the pope, as Paul once questioned Peter on the question of circumcision and convinced him if his folly (which as I understand Peter – referred to Cephas in this passage, admitted was right), when a course of action might not be right or at least the best (Galatians 2:11-19). The New Testament says if you have a problem with your brother possibly straying, talk to him, if he does not listen, get a few more believers to talk to him, if he is not convinced bring him in front of the whole church (think Cardinal Burke’s Dubia) and if he is still not convinced he is no longer in the church (Matthew 18:15-17).
The modernist in Rome used a third different destructive measure to seemingly invalidate episcopal consecrations – imprecise language, but base it on translations of orthodox Catholic forms not the original Latin. I know I appear to be one of “those guys” who sees a conspiracy in everything. But if someone or some group of people had not planned to infiltrate the church – say communist (see Marie Carre’s book AA-1025) or Freemasons (see John Vennari’s the Pernament Instruction of the Alta Vendita and Piers Compton’s the Broken Cross as well as Paul L. William’s book Operation Gladio), with the express purpose to destroy it, why would anybody try to change 1500 year old Rites (as did Martin Luther and English Bishop Crammer as seen in the book by Michael Davies entitled Crammer’s Godly Order) that had given life to so many great saintly priest and bishops like bishop Fisher martyred in his disagreement against Henry VIII as well as St. Padre Pio?