Concerning the Validity of Holy Orders since 1968

The existence of a valid and legitimate hierarchy are essential to the Roman Catholic Church. This is so true that one of the four marks of the true Church, as distinguished from all others, is that the true Church established by Jesus Christ is Apostolic.

Apostolicity is that mark whereby it is shown that the present day institution known as the Roman Catholic Church traces itself to the original Apostles. It means that the Church's hierarchy continues an unbroken line of succession from any one of the original Apostles.

To put it simply and plainly, if the Roman Catholic Church could cease to have a successor of one of the Apostles, it would cease being the Roman Catholic Church. For, as St. Paul states in his letter to the Ephesians: " are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2,20).

Lucifer's goal cannot be attained unless and until the Roman Catholic Church is destroyed. Lucifer inspires `naturalism' which is built upon his perverse will that makes a mockery of divine right order. The `natural' and the `supernatural' are presently opposed to each other.

Since God has conferred on man a supernatural destiny, it is absurd to refer to any kind of `natural' end of man. Man's final end is the participation by him of the Beatific Vision. There is a very limited natural end of man which serves as a means to the attainment of his ultimate supernatural end. Despite the desperate denials of Modenists and all other heretics, man cannot attain even his limited natural goal if he does not strive to realize his supernatural one.

Man is bound to strive for his ultimate goal. It is not a matter of free choice. A choice to the contrary dooms him to ultimate separation from God which is the essence of hell.

The Council of Trent teaches dogmatically: "If anyone will not confess that when the first man Adam had transgressed the mandate of God in paradise he did not immediately lose the sanctity and justice in which he had been constituted, anathema sit."(Denz. 788).

The supernatural state of man is only possible through the reception of sanctifying grace. The beginning of justification (restoration of the state of sanctifying grace) is accomplished through the Sacrament of Baptism.

Unfortunately, it is not enough just to be baptized. If we were to die immediately after receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, we would go directly to heaven. Or, as in the case of those who have received the supernatural grace of faith and desire to receive the Sacrament, but are impeded for some reason, these receive the effect of the Sacrament without having received the external form of the Sacrament. This is commonly called "Baptism of Desire" even though it is not, strictly speaking, the reception of the physical Sacrament itself.

The same is true of the other means of receiving sanctifying grace called "Baptism of Blood". This, too, can only be accomplished with the supernatural grace of God, given to those who shed their blood for the faith. Obviously, no one can shed his blood for the faith, the true faith, unless inspired, illuminated and strengthened by the grace of God.

This is the constant teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in opposition to all those who either deny the necessity of grace (the priest Pelagius) or deny God's power to confer sanctifying grace outside the physical Sacraments (Fr.Feeney, Rev. Wathan, the pseudo-Benedictines of Berlin, NJ and Filmore, NY and all those who follow the "Feeney heresy").

All men are called to the same supernatural end, that is, union with God. This call is a free divine offer, it is true; but, no one can reject it without serious sin. It is impossible to tend toward a purely natural end, as 18th century Naturalism and that of our times claims. Consequently, only supernaturally good works have importance for the last end of man. This is why the Fathers of the Church, especially St. Augustine, had little use for natural morality.

This preface was necessary so that the reader would be able to place in its proper perspective the grave consequences flowing from the destruction of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is destroyed, there is no longer any possibility of receiving supernatural grace. This is so, because our Lord established the Church of the New Testament for the purpose of continuing His saving mission until the end of time. The high priest (bishop) and priest of the New Testament is the effective means whereby the three-fold powers of Jesus Christ continue to bring down upon individual human beings the redemptive and salvific grace of Christ's obedient death on the Cross.

Just as our Lord Himself transmitted supernatural grace through the Sacraments which He instituted, so also does the hierarchy transmit supernatural grace to the faithful. The only difference is that when Jesus gave grace, He was giving of his divinity, whereas the hierarchy distribute grace of themselves and from themselves, but they distribute the grace of God merited by Jesus in His humanity.

Therefore, to destroy the priesthood is to destroy the Church. Only those who are on the side of Lucifer have anything to gain by opposing the Church. And, when speaking of "Church" here, the hierarchical Church is meant.

This is the reason why the Sacraments had to be changed: In order to nullify the saving mission of Jesus Christ. Without grace, souls become the helpless prey of Satan.

Without the three-fold powers of Jesus Christ, there just isn't a visible or invisible true Church.

The Apostate Church formally inaugurated with the alleged-Second Vatican Council, has logically followed its Luciferian goal: It has become an "anti-Church" in which the primitive errors of Protestantism now hold sway.

There is not a single Sacrament that has not been mutilated so as to lack its supernatural, grace-producing characteristic. What has been kept is nothing more than a naturalistic necessity for ritual. To ensure that the other Sacraments would not produce the grace which they signify, it was likewise imperative to destroy the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

For this reason, the clever dropping of a word here and there has been done in order to change the significance of those words that may or may not represent the correct form of the Sacrament.

Thus, the ritual that passes for the "ordination" or "consecration" of priests or bishops, respectively, has been so modified that there is no transmission of supernatural powers either to the "priest" or to the "bishop" ordained or consecrated according to the invented rites.

It makes little difference whether or not the subjects of these rituals are aware of what is taking place or not, their subjective intention alters nothing when the form is no longer a valid form.

The intention is equally necessary for the valid administration or reception of the Sacraments. The intention is not always evident in the words of the form, but is construed from the surrounding words.

One cannot presume that the Minister of the Sacrament has the proper intention simply because the matter and form of a Sacrament are present. The proper intention is assumed to be present not because the correct matter and form are employed but because of accompanying external qualifications.

The Spanish Inquisition was necessary to ferret out infiltrator Jews who visibly became Catholics for the secret purpose of undermining the Church. Such examples are plentiful. But just a few such examples from the past and the present are enough. The ideologist of the Illuminati (modern-day "Council on Foreign Relations" ) was a Jew who seemingly converted to Catholicism, entered the Society of Jesus, studied Canon Law, and then defected and organized The Illuminati. This man was Adam Weishaupt, S.J.

The next one _ among others _ in our day was Augustine Cardinal Bea. Another Jew from Germany. His influence over the occupants of the Chair of Peter is undeniable. We have another example in Cardinal Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris. He, too, is a Jew. Contrary to popular conditioned reflex, a `Jew' is not the same as a `Hebrew,' in general, nor a descendant of the tribe of Juda, in particular.

The "Pontifical" is the book containing certain rituals for those Sacraments which a bishop administers.

In the Pontifical of 1873, the ordaining Bishop admonishes the ordinand (the one to be ordained): "Bear in mind what you do; let your conduct be in conformity with the action you perform, so that celebrating the mystery of the Lord's death you take heed to fortify your members…."(Editor: emphasis added). Compare this with the Pontifical of 1968 (Freemason Annibal Bugnini's work): "Bear in mind what you do; let your conduct be in conformity with the action you perform, so that celebrating the mystery of the Lord's resurrection, you take heed to mortify your members from all vices …..".
As if to throw off any suspicion at the one word "resurrection" in place of "death", the new ritual goes on to pretend an enumeration of the duties of the priest; duties that are familiar to everyone. Yet, having falsified the true meaning of the purpose of Holy Orders, namely, to make present the bloody sacrifice of Calvary on our altars in an unbloody manner, the ordinand is now going to `celebrate' the `resurrection' of the Lord!

Notice: Only one word was changed here. Yet, this simple change of one word has altered the complete meaning of the Sacrifice of the Mass. It changed the Sacrifice of the Mass into a non-descript Protestant service. Remember: For the Protestant, the Mass is not a sacrifice or propitiation; it is only a vague `sacrifice' of praise and thanksgiving. Much like lighting a candle in honor of some personage.

As for the essential words to be used in the form, again, there is the difference of only one word. The simple particle `ut' was deleted from the 1873 Pontifical:

Pontifical of 1873: "…ut acceptum a te…"

Pontifical of 1968: "..acceptum a te…"

Noteworthy is the fact that in the new rite, there is no mention of receiving the power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead. There is no transmitting of the power to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Observe:

Pontifical of 1873:

"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 Amen."

Compare this to the new ritual of 1968:

"Receive the oblation from the holy people in order to offer it to God. Be aware of what you are going to do. Imitate what you are going to deal with, and conform your life to the mystery of the Cross of the Lord."

Here, in the 1968 ritual, we find nothing but deliberate ambiguity immersed in Catholic-sounding pious prattle.

Furthermore, there is no mention of receiving the power to forgive sins and to bless.

One cannot simply presume that the powers of the Catholic priesthood are transmitted to the candidate, since the term "priest" is not specifically limited to the Catholic priesthood, as is evident from the fact that other religions have their "priests."

In his Constitution `Sacramentum Ordinis' (November 30, 1947), Pope Pius XII definitively states: "Finally, it is not lawful to understand what we have above declared and established in the sense that other rites contained in the Roman Pontifical may be neglected; in fact, We command all that is prescribed in the Roman Pontifical (1873), to be religiously maintained and observed……No one has a right to modify our present Constitution nor oppose it by rash temerity."

Pope Pius XII already knew what was afoot. That is why, in an allocution to Cardinals and Bishops given on November 2, 1954 (All Souls' Day), he said: "The particular and chief duty of the priest has ever been to sacrifice. Where there is no true power to sacrifice, there is no true Priesthood."

We come to the tragic conclusion that those who have received what they may have subjectively believed to be the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church using the Ritual of 1968 are not validly ordained priests.

This conclusion is derived by means of the reasoning process based on deduction and induction.

In the next issue of The Seraph, we will deal with the question: Are those consecrated as bishops according to the Ritual of 1968 valid bishops?

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.