Against the Sedevacantists: The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration

One of the more well known sedevacansits (1) priests in the U.S.A., Fr. Anthony Cekada, recently rebutted the article by the Dominicans of Avrillé, which demonstrated the validity of the new rite of Episcopal Oridinations.

Fr. Cekada's argument was based on faulty premises:

I: Confusion of the Sacramental form and the sacramental formula

Fr. Cekada writes:

A. What is a Sacramental Form?
In catechism class we all learned the definition of a
sacrament: “An outward sign, instituted by Christ to
give grace.”
“Outward sign” in the definition refers to what we
see and hear when a sacrament is conferred — the
priest pours the water on the baby’s head and he recites
the formula “I baptize you,” etc.
Catholic theology teaches that in every sacrament
this outward sign consists of two elements joined together:
• Matter: some thing or action your senses can perceive
(pouring water, bread and wine, etc.)
• Form: the words recited that actually produce
the sacramental effect (“I baptize you…” “This is My
body…,” etc.)
Each sacramental rite, no matter how many other
prayers and ceremonies the Church has prescribed for
it, contains at least one sentence that either Catholic
theologians or authoritative Church pronouncements
have designated as its essential sacramental form.

The scholastic distinction of form and formula is classic. A sacrament is a sacred sign. As a sign it is an instrument of signifying. As an instrument of signifying it comprises something material or sensible, and somethign intelligible and spiritual. A sacrament effects what it signifies.

Thus in the consecration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine to be consecrated become the matter at the moment of the consecration; the words recited by the priest are well known, "Hoc est corpus meum etc.."

The words recited by the priest are not the form of the sacrament, but the sacramental formula. If they were the form, then only those words would be efficacious of a valid consecration, but as is well known in the 17 different rites in the Catholic Church, there are many different formulae used for valid consecration.

The form of the sacrament is what the formulae signify: namely the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true, real and substantial body and blood of the Lord Jesus.

Whenever the words used by the priest signify this, then the sacrament, omnibus paribus, is validly confected.

(Fr. Cekeda's confounding of these terms is somewhat saved by his distinction of the substantial and accidental meaning of the form, but his misidentification of the words as the form, enables him to misunderstand how to properly interpret the question of validity in regard to a proper form in Episcopal consecrations.)

II. The New Rite's formula vs. Pius XII's formula

Continuing, the same applies with the New Rite for the Ordination of Bishops, which is:

“Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Jesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.

Which ICEL renders as

“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.”

The formula approved by Pope Pius XII is:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.

In English, according to Fr. Cekeda:

“Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

As we can see, the fundamental or essential difference in signification is that in the new rite there is said "the power which is from You, the governing spirit etc..", whereas the old says, "the fullness of Thy ministry".

Neither seeminly speak explicitly of the priesthood or episcopacy.

But this is because, in Modern Languages, the meaning of these words "priesthood" and "episcopacy" are hidden from us.

"Episcopacy" comes from the Greek, "episcopos", that is "overseer"; and Bishop is the one appointed to oversee the Church in a locale. This word is from the NT, and in Acts we see St. Paul naming bishops.

Thus to essentially signify the ordination of a bishop, it suffices to use any term which essentially signifies an overseer. But an overseer by overseeing ostensibly governs, therefore any word signifying governance suffices. "Ministry" in the Catholic sense and in the context of the sacraments, means governance, because as Our Lord says, "I have come to minister, and not to be ministered to", that is to serve and not to be served, and in the dispensation of all the sacraments a bishop serves the local church.

The Latin in the traditional formula says "summam", the highest grade that is of the ministry. That is clear enough. It also calls the one ordained a Priest.

The Latin in the new formula says "principalem", which means princely grade, that is both the one who is the first and thus ruler of all, and the one from whom all depend; this equally and in a sense more accurately explains the order of a bishop; though it departs only in this from the traditional formula, that Christ says I have come to serve and not to be serve, and the traditional formula retains this mode of expressing, serving not ruling, where as the new formula transfers the image to governing, not serving. Both are sufficient, bu the older is more biblical.

Thus both are sufficient for validity. And all the other arguments of Fr. Cekeda are false, because they either do not address what is essential to the formula, or they are praeter rem.

-------------
FOOTNOTES

1) "Sedevacantist": one who holds that the See of Peter is vacant; but in the sense I use it here, I mean "one who holds that the see of Peter is vacant today, i.e. that Pope Benedict XVI is not the legitimate successor of St. Peter.