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 |
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 |
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
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
[1] The Truth about What Really Happened to the
Catholic Church after Vatican II, pp. 116-117.
p.
[3]
http://catholicherald.com/stories/Priesthood-Ordination-Homily,4135.
[4]
http://www.marian.org/divinemercy/story.php?NID=3649
Steven_C._Rogers.pdf.
[6]
http://archstl.org/archstl/page/priesthood-ordinations-become-more-and-more-one-heart-christ-good-shepherd.
[7] http://www.dcdiocese.org/news/archive/1354-bishop-brungardt-s-homily-at-the-ordi nation-of-donald-bedore-1/file
[8] https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-fran cesco_20130421 _omelia-ordinazione-presbiterale.pdf