On the Validity of the New Sacraments

In this treatise, I will argue that, as a result of Paul VI’s non-Papacy, the New Rites of
Ordination are to be treated as invalid.

Premise 1: Paul VI invoked his Apostolic Authority to declare the form for the
New Rites of Ordination.

In the 1968 Apostolic Constitution, Pontificalis Romani, Paul VI determined - or rather,

attempted to determine - the matter and form to be used in the administration of the New
Rites of Ordination to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy. In his Apostolic
Constitution, he said the following:

“Therefore, with Our supreme Apostolic authority, we decree and establish the
following regarding the matter and the form in the conferment of each Order.”1

Likewise, Pope Pius XII, in the 1947 Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis,
determined the matter and form that were contained in the Rites already in existence. In
the same Apostolic Constitution, His Holiness decreed the following:

“As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme
Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows.”2

Now, there is certainly no difference in the powers between two Pontiffs. We know that the
Church has the power to change the form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, since Christ did
not provide any particular form, for the Catholic Encyclopaedia says that, “As Christ did not
ordain His Apostles by imposition of hands, it would seem that He left to the Church the power
of determining by which particular rite the power and grace should be conferred”3.

Paul VI, in Pontificalis Romani, even decreed that such was to be promulgated “despite what
may be otherwise in the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of Our Predecessors”4.

Therefore, we must conclude that Paul VI invoked the same Apostolic Authority that Pope
Pius XII did, and (theoretically) therefore properly changed the form for the Sacrament of
Holy Orders.

1 Pontificalis Romani, 18th of June, 1968

2 Sacramentum Ordinis n.5, 30th of November, 1947
3 Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1914
4 See footnote 1.
Premise 2: But Paul VI had no Apostolic Authority to invoke (i.e., he wasn’t
Pope).

This premise hinges upon sedevacantism, which posits that, on account of public heresy on
the part of Conciliar Papal claimants, they were barred from the Papacy from Divine law,
and therefore not Pontiffs. A great introduction to this could be “Traditionalists, Infallibility
and the Pope”, by the Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada. For the sake of convenience, though, I will
include a (very!) brief argument below.

Premise 1: Public heretics are barred, by Divine law, from the Pontificate [Coronata, Wernz-
Vidal, Maroto and so on].

Premise 2: But John XXIII and his Successors were/are public heretics, as a result of their
acceptance of various heretical doctrines, such as religious liberty, false ecclesiology,
collegiality, subsistit in, and so on.

Conclusion: John XXIII and his Successors (including Paul VI), therefore, could not have
been true Popes.

There are various other arguments for sedevacantism, which I have detailed in a previous
writing of mine, “Sedevacantism - My Arguments and Reasons”, but I will leave these out for
the sake of brevity. Those who wish to read these arguments can do so on scribd; I can also
recommend the writings of Fr. Cekada, Bishop Donald Sanborn, and the theological
directory of the Roman Catholic Institute for more on the heresies and errors of the Second
Vatican Council.

Premise 3: The New Rites of Ordination represent a substantial change from

the Old Rites of Ordination.

This is not up for debate; one can observe it by common sense. Observe the Old form for
episcopal consecration (which changed the most [completely], and upon which all of the
other Orders depend):

“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments
of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”5

Now, observe the New form:

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from You, the governing
Spirit whom You gave to Your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the Holy
Apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be Your temple for the unceasing glory and
praise of Your Name.”6

5 Sacramentum Ordinis n.5, 30th of November, 1946

6 Pontificalis Romani, 18th of June, 1968
It is very easy to see the substantial change here. This New form is completely different to
anything we have ever seen before. The phrase “governing Spirit” has been used before,
mind you - except this was in the consecration of Patriarchs, who were already bishops. This
form is a completely unseen one for the consecration of bishops.

Since this is a completely unfamiliar form, it must be considered doubtful by the pure fact of
common reason, especially given the pernicious nature of those heretics who have
blasphemously altered the Mass and the Sacraments, going so far as to found a New
Religion which is damning many, many souls to Hell - why should we trust this New form,
which we have never seen before? We shouldn’t.

Premise 4: Under doubt, moral theology obliges us to refuse to partake in such

a doubtful act.

Moral theology is clear that, when we doubt something - whether something is sinful
(which using an invalid rite certainly is!), whether something is lawful (which using an
invalid and non-Catholic rite certainly is not!) and so on - we must refuse to partake in it,
and refuse to follow such a doubtful conscience.

The moral theologians John McHugh, O.P., and Charles Callan, O.P., teach this in their 1958
work on moral theology. In their section entitled, “Obligation of Conscience”, they write the
following:

“A doubtful conscience may not be followed, if the doubt is such that one is not
reasonably sure that a certain act is lawful.”7

Then, in their section entitled, “An Uncertain Conscience”, they write:

“From what was said above concerning the certitude requisite for conscience (see 641
sqq.), it follows that: (a) when the state of mind is positive or negative doubt, one is not
allowed to act; for a person who is ignorant of what he should do, or who is fluctuating
between opposites, runs the risk of sin and its consequences, if he acts blindly; (b) when the
state of mind is suspicion, one is not allowed to act, for conscience must be more than
conjecture or inclination.”8

What do we gather from this? Well - when we’re reasonably unsure that something is
lawful, we can’t do it! If we’ve positive doubt about something, we cannot act! If we have
even a suspicious state of mind - we cannot act!

7 Moral Theology: A Complete Course 585, McHugh and Callan, 1958

8 ibid., 655
Conclusion: Therefore, until the Church rules on the matter in the future, we
are obliged to treat the New Rites of Ordination as invalid.

Now, let us apply the moral theology we discussed above to the situation that we find
ourselves in. We are not reasonably sure that using the New Rites are lawful - indeed, we
are certain that they are not! - and we can therefore not use them. We have positive doubt
about the validity of the New Rites of Ordination, and must therefore regard them as
invalid.

Indeed, we are of a very suspicious state of mind regarding the validity of these New Rites -
therefore, we cannot act! We cannot treat them as valid.

Until the crisis in the Church is over, and until we have a true Roman Pontiff, we must
regard these New Rites as invalid - or, as Pope Leo XIII called Anglican Orders, and as Fr.
Cekada refers to Conciliar Orders, “absolutely null and utterly void”.

Fr. Cekada has written two works - “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void”, and “Still Null, Still
Void” - on this matter, and goes into great detail and precision regarding the deficiencies of
the form of the New Rites. These are excellent works, and I recommend them to all who
have the time to read them. I decided to take a different spin on the idea, basing my
argument off of Paul VI’s non-Papacy.

Given on the 4th of March in the Year of Our Lord 2019,

Feast of Saint Casimir the Confessor
A. M. D. G. +