TradCatKnight: PETER DIMOND’S EPIC BLUNDER ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

PETER DIMOND’S EPIC BLUNDER ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION

TrueorFalsePope

An expose on the Dimond Brother Feeneyite heretics...

The lay Sedevacantist apologist Peter Dimond put out a video disagreeing with a point we made in our chapter on the new rite of ordination for priests. He referred to it as a “colossal error,” an “epic blunder,” and even “one of the… most significant blunders we’ve seen in a polemical work of this nature.” In this article, we will show that it is not us, but Peter Dimond who is guilty of the “colossal error” and “epic blunder.” We will show that the self-proclaimed “monk” from the so-called “Holy Family Monastery” has precious little competence in the area of sacramental theology, and makes up the rules as he goes.

In Chapter 19 of our book, True or False Pope?, we quoted Peter Dimond who confidently proclaimed that Paul VI’s new rite of ordination removed every reference to a sacrificing priesthood. We responded to this false allegation by quoting directly from the new rite itself, demonstrating that there are, in fact, multiple references to a sacrificing priesthood. In his recent video, Dimond again claims that the new rite promulgated by Paul VI “systematically removed of every reference to the signification of the true sacrificing Catholic priesthood, in a pattern which was similar to what the Anglicans did in the sixteenth century.” He then drew the following conclusion: “Since Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared that the Anglican rite was invalid as a result of that pattern of deletion, which manifested an intention contrary to that of the Church, the same conclusion obviously applies to the revolutionary post-Vatican II new rite of Paul VI.”

The only thing “obvious” to us from Dimond’s statement is that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. As we will prove in a minute, Dimond’s claim that all references to a sacrificing priesthood have been removed from the new rite simply does not correspond to reality.

Pope Leo XIII

Regarding his comparison between the new rite of Paul VI and that of the Anglicans, there are a number of problems with this line of reasoning as well. As we show in Chapter 18 and 19 of our book, Leo XIII’s declaration of invalidity for the Anglican rite (which is not a Catholic rite) in no way can be used to prove, or even suggest, that the new rite of Paul VI is invalid. The two rites are apples and oranges. One is an approved rite of the Catholic Church; the other is a non-approved rite of a heretical sect. Not only did the Anglicans create a new form for their new rite (which was not only clearly deficient, but also not approved by the Church), but they also have a completely different (i.e., false) understanding of the office of bishop. This false understanding of the bishop’s office is one of the problems with their rite, since the meaning (substance) behind the words (accidents) they use for the office of bishop, is different than what the Catholic Church understands for the office of bishop.

This problem associated with their different understanding of the office of bishop, is similar to the problem with Mormon baptisms, which the Church has declared to be invalid. Although the Mormons baptize using the correct words (e.g., Father, Son and Holy Ghost), when they use these words, the meaning they convey is different than what the Church means when it uses the same words. Because of this, the Church has declared that their baptisms are invalid. A similar problem also exists with the Anglicans, since they have a different understanding of the office of bishop. So there are many problems with the Anglican rite, beyond the elimination of ancillary prayers. Again, the two rites are apple and oranges in more ways than one.

We refer the reader to Chapters 18 and 19 of our book for a more complete explanation of why one cannot judge the new rite of Paul VI in light of Leo XIII’s teaching concerning the Anglican rite, which Pete Dimond either didn’t read or was not able to comprehend. For now, we will address Dimond’s erroneous claim that Paul VI's new rite “removed every reference” to a sacrificing priesthood, since this is what he uses as the basis for his comparison of the new rite of Paul VI and the Anglican rite. We will begin with some basic sacramental theology so that the underlying argument can be understood.

Fr Hesse Know your Rites!

The Four Causes

A sacrament is a compound of matter (material case) and form (formal cause). It is administered by a minister (the efficient cause) who must have the intention (final cause) of doing what the Church does. A sacrament is dependent upon all four causes for validity.

Form and Matter

A Sacrament has two elements, namely, the matter and the form. The form of the sacrament consists of the words that are spoken; the matter is the “sensible thing” of the sacrament. In Baptism, for example, the form consists of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The matter of baptism (the “sensible thing”) is the water.

The form determines the matter. In other words, the words that constitute the form determine what the matter is intended to signify. For example, in baptism, the words “I baptize thee, etc.” determine that the water signifies the washing away of Original Sin.

Some sacraments use the same matter. The laying on of hands, for example, is the matter for the Sacraments of Confirmation, priestly ordination, and episcopal consecration. It is the form (the words) that determines what the matter (the laying on of hands) is intended to signify in each of these respective sacraments.

Significatio ex Adjunctis

Now, just as the matter is determined by the form, so too, in some cases, the form itself derives its signification, in part, from the general context in which it is used. The context of a sacramental form consists of the words and the prayers that surround it, as well as the general ceremony itself. This determination by the ecclesial, historical and liturgical “context,” (which helps to give the form its intended meaning), is known as determinatio ex adjunctis or significatio ex adjunctis. These surrounding words and prayers help to clarify the meaning of the words that constitute the form, just as the form itself signifies (or determines) the matter.

Now, the dispute with Peter Dimond, which is the subject of this article, does not pertain directly to the form itself, but to the significatio ex adjunctis, that is, to the prayers and words which surround the form in Paul VI’s new rite of priestly ordination. Dimond claims that all references to a sacrificing priesthood have been eliminated from the rite, and then argues that this alleged elimination destroys the intention of the bishop to do what the Church does – namely, to ordain a true sacrificing priest. We will now address this argument directly.

Fr Hesse: Validity of Novus Ordo Sacraments

The Rite of Paul VI Includes Express Mention
of a Sacrificing Priesthood

As we have seen, Peter Dimond claims that Paul VI’s new rite “systematically removed every reference to the signification of the true sacrificing Catholic priesthood,” and concludes by arguing that the ordinations performed according to this rite are null and void. Here is his argument, in his own words, which we cite in our book:

“[T]he following words declared by Pope Leo XIII apply exactly to the New Rite of Paul VI. Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: ‘For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], 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. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.’

“The New Rite [of Paul VI] fits this description precisely. Could anyone deny this fact? No, to do so one would have to bear false witness. The New Rite of Ordination specifically eliminated the sacrificing priesthood. The intention it manifests is therefore contrary to the intention of the Church and cannot suffice for validity.”[1]

We will now prove that the above statement of Peter Dimond is completely false. Contrary to what Dimond claims, the New Rite of Paul VI does indeed make explicit mention of the sacrificing priesthood. It is found in several places, including the Homily and the Examination (which are part of the ceremony itself, and therefore part of the significatio ex adjunctis of the rite). Before we address Dimond’s attempted rebuttal to this fact, we will cite several quotations (which are included in our book), taken directly from the new rite promulgated by Paul VI. This is also included in our book:

“This man, your relative and friend, is now to be raised to the order of priests. … He is called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration he will be made a true priest of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, sustain God’s people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord’s sacrifice.”

“My son … Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful by uniting it with Christ’s sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands. … In the sacrament of penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church.”

In the Examination section of the rite, the bishop makes reference to celebrating the mysteries (i.e. sacraments) with the intention of doing so in accord with Tradition:

“Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed them down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of Christ’s people?”

So, in these places we have explicit reference to the priest offering sacrifice and forgiving sins. Dimond does not deny this, nor does he claim that these words do not refer to a true sacrificing priesthood. What he argues instead is that because the precise wording of these sections of the new rite is not mandatory, it means the wording cannot be considered part of the rite itself. We will quote him directly. Referring to the words cited above, he said “the words they [Salza/Siscoe] cite are not part of the new ordination rite itself.”

Dimond then quotes, as his authority, Michael Davies, who referred to the precise wording from this section of the new rite as only “model” wording, as opposed to a mandatory wording. We find it interesting that Dimond quotes Davies as his authority, since he has publicly declared that the late Michael Davies was “a faithless heretic.”[2] And he quotes the “faithless heretic” as his authority throughout the video, which is yet another example of the schizophrenic “cherry-picking” methodology employed by Sedevacantists, which we have exposed over and over again in this debate.

Now, the first problem with Dimond’s argument is that just because the Church presents a text in a Catholic ritual as “model” language (as opposed to precise “mandatory” language) does not mean the model language is not part of the rite (or at least is not present in the rite). The fact is, the above “model” wording for the ordination ceremony is taken directly from the Pontificale Romanum, which is the official liturgical book containing the rites and rubrics used by the bishop for the ordination ceremony. Thus, the model wording, which makes explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood, is clearly present in the rite of priestly ordination, even though, as the introduction to the I.C.E.L. version says, it “is not intended that the model instruction should be read verbatim, as was generally done in the case of the ordination instructions of the Roman Pontifical.”

The second problem is that Dimond plainly acknowledges that the language specifies the sacrificial priesthood. That’s why he attempted to divorce the language from the rite itself, by claiming it is not part of the rite. In so doing, Dimond is admitting that the language in the model homily (the significatio ex adjunctis) gives a Catholic meaning to the form, specifically, by explicit mention of a sacrificial priesthood (that’s why he must argue this language is not part of the rite). Note also that Dimond does not point to any language in the form, or even in the ancillary prayers, which would negate or contradict the Catholic meaning of the new rite of ordination. In short, just because the rite grants the bishop flexibility in the wording in certain parts of the ceremony (specifically the homily) does not mean the explicit language from the model homily is not present in the rite itself (it clearly is); and it certainly does not mean the liberty granted to the bishop by the rubrics invalidates the rite. The question then becomes a practical one, namely, do the bishops use the wording of the model homily that is contained in the liturgical book, or do they depart from it? And if they depart from it, do they fail to make explicit mention of the sacrificing priesthood?

Michael Dimond

And this brings us to Dimond’s third problem, which completes the decimation of his argument. If he had taken the time to research actual ordination ceremonies, as we have done, he would have seen that the recommended wording from the Pontificale Romanum is used, almost word for word, even by some of the most liberal bishops in the Church. What is clear is that the “model homily” is viewed, not merely as one choice out of many, but as providing basic structure and suggested wording for the bishops to use in the ordination ceremony. What we found is that most bishops follow the wording almost verbatim, while others use more flexibility, but every ordination ceremony we researched followed the same basic pattern, and every one made explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood (usually using the exact wording from the model homily, even when they deviated from the model wording in other places).

What this shows is that the “model” is just that: it is the model for them to follow when celebrating the rite, and they do indeed follow it - usually very closely, and sometimes to the letter. What this means, and what our research confirmed, is that the express mention of a sacrificing priesthood is not only on the books, but it is present during the ordination rite itself when it is actually performed, contrary to what Peter Dimond imagines.

To demonstrate this, we will provide excerpts from some of the ordination ceremonies we examined during our research, which were performed by “Novus Ordo” bishops. The first is from an ordination performed by Bishop Loverde, of Arlington, Virginia, in June of 2001.

“Our brothers, Richard Carr, Frederick Edlefsen, Stephen McGraw, Edwin Perez, James Poumade and James Tucker, have seriously considered this step and are now to be ordained to priesthood … They are called to share in the priesthood of the bishops and to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest. By consecration they will be made true priests of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, sustain God’s people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord’s sacrifice. …

“Your ministry will perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful by uniting it to Christ’s sacrifice, the sacrifice which is offered sacramentally through your hands. … In the Sacrament of Penance, you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church.”[3]

We see that the essential the wording is virtually identical to that which is found in the Pontificale Romanum (quoted earlier). Would Peter Dimond claim that this ordination ceremony lacked any explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood, simply because the words used by the bishop were not mandatory? That would be absurd.

The next is taken from the ordination performed by Bishop Holley, in May of 2009.

“My dear son in Christ, Deacon Andrew Davy, we are gathered here on this joyful occasion with your family. … In a few moments from, you will be ordained to the Sacred Priesthood … From now on, for the rest of your life, pray every Mass, as if it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass. … In being configured to Christ the eternal High Priest and joined to the priesthood of the Bishops, he will be consecrated as a true priest of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, to shepherd God's people, and to celebrate the sacred Liturgy, especially the Lord's sacrifice.

… by your ministry the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful will be made perfect, being united to the sacrifice of Christ, which will be offered through your hands in an unbloody way on the altar … forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church in the sacrament of Penance.”[4]

Once again, we see the same explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood, and even of the sacrifice of Christ being offered “in an unbloody way” by the priest. This is very clear Catholic terminology for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Next is from the 2006 ordinations performed by Bishop Finn, of Kansas City:

“Beloved brothers and sisters: because these our sons, Stephen Hansen, Justin Hoye, and Steven Rogers , who are your relatives and friends, are now to be advanced to the Order of Priests … After mature deliberation, these, our brothers, are now to be ordained to the priesthood … In being configured to Christ the eternal High Priest and joined to the priesthood of the Bishops, they will be consecrated as true priests of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, to shepherd God’s people, and to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy, especially the Lord’s sacrifice. …

“Likewise, you will exercise in Christ the office of sanctifying. For, by your ministry, the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful will be made perfect, being united to the sacrifice of Christ, which will be offered through your hands in an unbloody way on the altar… forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.”[5]

Once again, we have the same clear references to the sacrificing priesthood, which Peter Dimond claims has been “systematically removed” from the new rite, “in a pattern which was similar to what the Anglicans did in the sixteenth century.” These references may have been “systematically removed” from Dimond’s research (if he actually did any), but it was certainly not from the new rite of ordination for these priests.

Next is the ordination ceremony performed by Bishop Burke, in 2008.

“Beloved brothers and sisters: because these our sons, who are your relatives and friends, are now to be advanced to the Order of Priests, consider carefully the nature of the rank in the Church to which they are about to be raised. … After mature deliberation, these, our brothers, are now to be ordained to the priesthood … In being configured to Christ the eternal High Priest and joined to the priesthood of the Bishops, they will be consecrated as true priests of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, to shepherd God's people, and to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy, especially the Lord's sacrifice. …

“[by] your ministry, the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful will be made perfect, being united to the sacrifice of Christ, which will be offered through your hands in an unbloody way on the altar … forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church in the sacrament of Penance.”[6]

Are we seeing a pattern here? Indeed, we are. While the bishops are not permitted flexibility by the rite, all of the homilies we researched follow the exact pattern of the “model homily” with a clear reference to the sacrificing priesthood.

Next we have the ordinations performed by Bishop Brungardt, in May of 2011. During the ceremony, the bishop took the liberty granted him by the rite to incorporate the Council of Trent’s teaching about transubstantiation. He said:

“Deacon Don, soon to be Father Don, you are about to receive this extraordinary sacrament, a sacrament that will change your very being, a consecration that will alter your essence, you will be changed ontologically. … ‘by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders,” the priest “acts in persona Christi Capitis, … acting in the person of Christ” the Head (CCC, #1548). This is an awesome reality and responsibility. … you will soon celebrate, as a ministerial priest, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where “under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity” (Council of Trent; CCC, #1413). You will be “united to the sacrifice of Christ, which will be offered through your hands in an unbloody way on the altar, in union with the faithful (Ordination Rite, #151).”[7]

Here we have another clear reference to the sacrificing priesthood – with a quote from the Council of Trent, no less - in the ordination rite that Peter Dimond claims has eliminated “every reference to the signification of the true sacrificing Catholic priesthood.” Clearly, Peter Dimond did not do his homework before leaping to his false conclusion (which he has been promoting publicly for years), and then further embarrassing himself with his latest video.

Lastly, but not least, we will quote from the 2013 ordination ceremony performed by Pope Francis himself. As much as Francis appears to despise tradition and the following of liturgical rubrics, when it came to ordination, he followed the Roman Pontifical almost word for word, with only a few additions. The following is taken directly from the Vatican’s website:

“Beloved brothers and sisters: because these our sons, who are your relatives and friends, are now to be advanced to the Order of priests, consider carefully the nature of the rank in the Church to which they are about to be raised. … priests are established co-workers of the Order of Bishops, with whom they are joined in the priestly office … After mature deliberation and prayer, these, our brothers, are now to be ordained to the priesthood … In being configured to Christ the eternal High Priest and joined to the priesthood of the Bishops, they will be consecrated as true priests of the New Testament, to preach the Gospel, to shepherd God’s people, and to celebrate the sacred Liturgy, especially the Lord’s sacrifice. … Now, my dear brothers and sons, you are to be raised to the Order of the Priesthood. … Impart to everyone the word of God which you have received with joy. … Meditating on the law of the Lord, see that you believe what you read, that you teach what you believe, and that you practice what you teach. Remember too that the word of God is not your property: it is the word of God. And the Church is the custodian of the word of God. … Likewise you will exercise in Christ the office of sanctifying. For by your ministry the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful will be made perfect, being united to the sacrifice of Christ, which will be offered through your hands in an unbloody way on the altar … you will forgive sins in the name of Christ and the Church in the sacrament of Penance.”[8]

As we can see, there is explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood in each of these ordination ceremonies. What this proves is that Peter Dimond’s assertion that “every reference” to a “sacrificing Catholic priesthood” has been systematically removed from the new rite is completely and utterly false. His statement simply does not correspond to reality, since explicit mention of the sacrifice is not only present in the official liturgical books, but it is also used in the actual ordination ceremonies, which are performed according to the new rite.

In light of what we have seen, we will again quote Dimond’s argument, and let the readers decide for themselves if it has any validity.

“Thus, the following words declared by Pope Leo XIII apply exactly to the New Rite of Paul VI. Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: ‘For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], 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. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.’

“The New Rite fits this description precisely. Could anyone deny this fact? No, to do so one would have to bear false witness. The New Rite of Ordination specifically eliminated the sacrificing priesthood. The intention it manifests is therefore contrary to the intention of the Church and cannot suffice for validity.”[9]

You see, Peter Dimond never bothered to check the facts to see if what he thought about the new rite of ordination corresponded to reality. Instead, he simply jumped to the false conclusion that because the specific language, in certain parts of the rite, does not have to be followed verbatim, means that “every reference” to the “sacrificing Catholic priesthood” was systematically removed. That was quite a leap in “logic,” but then again, there is nothing logical about Sedevacantism and the arguments that Pete Dimond manufactures to defend it.

Related:
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2016/02/refuting-feeneyism-dimond-brother-cult.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/04/baptism-of-desirebaptism-of-blood.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/04/three-errors-of-feeneyite-movement.html

Conclusion

As we have seen, by virtue of the prayers and surrounding words (the significatio ex adjunctis) of the actual ordination ceremonies performed according to the new rite, there is explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood. The only question that remains is whether Peter Dimond will now admit that he was dead wrong, and had no idea what he was talking about when he leaped to his false conclusion, or whether he will claim that an ordination ceremony in which a bishop makes explicit reference to a sacrificial priesthood is invalid, simply because the words used were not mandatory? Don’t put such an absurd argument past Pete Dimond, who has already been backed in the proverbial corner with his “epic blunder,” and will now be scrambling to save face.

If Dimond wants to find examples of a bishop failing to make explicit reference to sacrifice, let him do so; but for him to claim that every reference of a sacrificing priesthood has been eliminated from the new rite, simply because the rubrics do not require that the model homily be followed verbatim, is totally false. He has completely discredited himself with such a ridiculous and ignorant argument.

We should also note that even if a bishop did fail to make explicit mention of a sacrificing priesthood, there is no reason to simply assume that this omission in the significatio ex adjunctis would invalidate the rite. Whether or not the words used during a particular ordination ceremony lacked what was essential for validity, involves both questions of fact and law which the Church alone (not Peter Dimond, thank God) has the authority to judge.

TradCatKnight Radio: The (MHFM) Dimond Brother Cult