Apostolic Succession

According to some branches of Christianity, notably Roman Catholicism, Jesus ordained his disciples to perform certain sacraments, and they in turn ordained others to perform these sacraments, and only the legitimate successors of the apostles can validly perform these sacraments.   So supposedly most sacraments are invalid unless performed by a priest, by someone who has been authorized by someone who has been authorized … all the way back to Jesus.

Trouble is that because the official Roman Catholic Church has not believed in Apostolic Succession for some time, Pope Francis arguably never got ordained, in the sense that his ordination did not grant him power over sacraments, in the sense that it failed to say, or act out, the granting of power over sacraments,  and is therefore only a layman who cannot perform a valid sacrament.

If you do not believe in apostolic succession, then Pope Francis is just another man.  And if you do believe in apostolic succession, then he is still just another man, because ordained by people who corrected the ordination to avoid expressing belief in apostolic succession.

The radical protestant position, the puritan position, the leftist position is that any baptized Christian who inwardly and outwardly has right intention can perform any sacrament that is appropriate to his authority within the congregation. Unlike most puritan positions, there is reasonable scriptural support for this position, while scriptural support for the proposition that only a priest can perform a sacrament is lacking. Indeed, arguably the doctrine of special priestly power over sacraments verges on theomancy.

But even if the left is correct on this one, they are still arrogant, overbearing, and intrusive.

The left rules, and the Church complies.  Thus, in the sixties, Anglican priests and Roman Catholic priests, and indeed priests of every major Christian church, except for Greek Orthodox stopped ordaining priests as having special power to perform sacraments.  In particular Roman Catholic ordination dropped the line that they were endowing the supposed priest with the power to “offer Mass for the living and the dead”

Maybe that line was not necessary, because making the priest a priest implies it. But if you delete the line, then it no longer implies it.

Greek Orthodox does not have that line, but does have instead ritual that solemnly acts out the bestowal of special power over the Eucharist passing from the ordaining priest to the ordained priest.

The ritual changed because progressives reject apostolic succession. Changing the ritual therefore ends apostolic succession because that is what the change was intended to mean.

So, if you believe in Apostolic succession, you need to get your sacraments from someone who has been ordained in one of those schismatic micro churches by a bishop who schismed from one of the major Christian religions when they turned left and submitted to the Cathedral in the sixties.  Pope Francis is not a Pope, nor even a Bishop, nor even a priest.

Charles the First said “No Bishop, No King”, and ever since then the descendents of his enemies have been trying to eradicate Bishops.  In the sixties, they largely succeeded.

If there is such a thing as Apostolic Succession, and if Apostolic Succession continues, it continues in Bishops descended from the schismatics of the sixties – whose churches are the size of a mustard seed.

Protestants said “no” to popes.

Puritans said “no” to popes and kings.

Now Puritans rule the world.  Kings are gone.  Did you think popes would remain?

Neo reaction means that conservatism has expired.  There is nothing left to conserve.  Reaction has expired.  The old regime has died beyond possibility of revival.  Not only is the Pope not Catholic, you cannot find Catholics in the Vatican.  Apostolic succession of Bishops remains in a mustard seed of schismatic far right churches, but apostolic succession of Popes has lapsed.

Neo reaction is a radical, revolutionary, anti utopian movement.  We have no good solutions to the problem of collective decision making, and therefore it is time for bad solutions.

There is no Pope, and the only way you are going to get a pope back is if a new holy Roman Emperor summons a conclave of Bishops to appoint a new Pope.

A god who designed creatures, a maker as men are makers, a God in our own image, was a mighty defense of order.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colors,
He made their tiny wings.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

After Darwin, the designer God is dead.  There is no longer evidence of a God made in our image.

We must look to some different defense of order. Micro economics defends the capitalist order. Darwinism defends the natural rule of men over women and superior races over inferior races.

The Christian Church has been highly successful in resisting external attack, but progressives are entryists.  The holier than Jesus Church to which William Wilberforce belonged claimed to be Anglican, while they believed that members of their church were the elect, were saints, and regular anglicans were damned.  They swore to the 39 articles while believing these articles to be instruments of evil class oppression.

Entryists form an organization within the organization, claiming to be loyal members of the outer organization, indeed more loyal than thou, while working to its destruction, cooperating with those that are openly on the outside, while purporting to cooperate with those on the inside.

And, in the sixties, Churches that believed in the apostolic succession and ordained their priests with the special and miraculous power to perform sacraments, were taken over by those who quietly rejected that doctrine.  And thus, in those churches, the apostolic succession was ended.

Conservatives conserve their victorious enemies. Roman Catholics attribute to their Church a meaning it is not willing to express. A Roman Catholic believes that there is an important difference between his church and a protestant church such that his Eucharist is valid, and the Protestant’s Eucharist is invalid. But there is no important difference, cannot be any important difference, is not permitted to be any important difference, between progressive protestantism, and progressive Roman Catholicism, because they are all under the same thumb.

Ecumenism was quietly implemented when you were not looking. A progressive believes that all religions are precursors of progressivism. His Jesus is a sort of John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama. Jesus the community organizer replaces Christ the Redeemer. Feminism replaces marriage.

Apostolic succession is a doctrine that favors official religions.  And the official religion is progressivism.  Progressives have, supposedly, received the authority passed along by Jesus.

If a neoreactionary favors official religion as a force for order, and progressivism is official religion, what is his complaint?

His complaint is that progressivism is a force of disorder.  Progressives want to run everything, but, as Obamacare and the Occupy campsites illustrated, cannot run anything.  They are like a horde of locusts.  They take over everything and ruin everything.  The only way you can have an organization that functions is to have an organization that actively evades and resists progressive dominion.

Progressivism is a force of disorder because progressives are commies, or rather, progressives are not commies but commies are progressives.  Progressives want to submit everything to collective decision making, which is to say, progressive decision making, but we don’t have any good mechanisms for collective decision making.

A progressive thinks collective decision making is wonderful, and therefore should be applied everywhere on everything.  A libertarian thinks it is terrible, and therefore should be applied as little as possible.  A neoreactionary thinks it is terrible, so when we really need collective decision making we might as well use known terrible that have, in the past not been as disastrous as usual.

Tags:

42 Responses to “Apostolic Succession”

  1. e) What questions do divorced and remarried people pose to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these situations, how many ask for these sacraments?

  2. […] Apostolic Succession « Jim’s Blog […]

  3. No reading into it necessary at all. A *priestly dignity* is conferred upon the priest-elect. This is given so he can assist the bishop in his exercise of the apostolic ministry. Every bishop is a priest, but not all priests are bishops. So it’s not a power simply given, but a ministry exercised under episcopal authority.

    What is performed in the apostolic ministry? Baptism, Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, and intercessory prayer are referred to in the text.

    Neither old-time Puritans nor new-time progressives are satisfied with second class status. They seek preeminence over the faithful apart from the historic episcopate. They believe in the primacy of their own personal spiritual competence.

    Such a principle is nowhere expressed in the rite and contrary to the very idea of ordination.

    Besides, Puritans don’t believe baptism regenerates. In the Puritan mind, regeneration is associated with an authentic conversion experience, as either its cause or effect. Progressives don’t believe sinners need to be reconciled, because they don’t believe in sin.

    You say it’s intentionally ambiguous. I say it’s articulating how bishops and priests function in the context of the whole Church, which includes the laity. Maybe they tried to say too much in the ritual.

    • jim says:

      A *priestly dignity* is conferred upon the priest-elect.

      What is in a priestly dignity?

      What is performed in the apostolic ministry? Baptism, Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, and intercessory prayer are referred to in the text.

      Anyone can do intercessory prayer, so I don’t see any claim that that not anyone cannot do the rest?

      Neither old-time Puritans nor new-time progressives are satisfied with second class status. They seek preeminence over the faithful apart from the historic episcopate. They believe in the primacy of their own personal spiritual competence.

      Such a principle is nowhere expressed in the rite and contrary to the very idea of ordination.

      That position is not expressed in the ritual, but neither is it denied.

      The puritan/progressive position is that any sincere believer, or any sincere believer with a leadership position in the congregation (for example) can do this stuff.

      Besides, Puritans don’t believe baptism regenerates. In the Puritan mind, regeneration is associated with an authentic conversion experience, as either its cause or effect. Progressives don’t believe sinners need to be reconciled, because they don’t believe in sin.

      I am pretty sure they do believe in sin: Indeed Bolz-Weber will tell at great length how you are sinfully harming females by looking at them, sinfully harming homosexuals and transexuals by not giving them sufficient approval and acceptance, sinfully holding back blacks by thinking that their poor performance is their own fault. Furthermore, she will tell you you are guilty of original sin, in that the wealth of white european society was stolen from colored people by slavery and colonialism. Indeed, a progressive can rant about other people’s sins all day, and usually does.

      You say it’s intentionally ambiguous. I say it’s articulating how bishops and priests function in the context of the whole Church, which includes the laity. Maybe they tried to say too much in the ritual.

      Its verbosity is a squidlike cloud of ink, emitted to cover their panic stricken flight, a flood of words that says nothing at all. It takes very few words to articulate priestly function.

    • jim says:

      Summary: During the religious conflicts of the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church held that ordination that did not explicitly grant power to perform the Eucharist is invalid.

      This position has never been retracted, and is still theoretically church doctrine – though Roman Catholic ordination no longer explicitly grants power to perform the Eucharist.

      • “Roman Catholic ordination no longer explicitly grants power to perform the Eucharist.”

        Not so. From the Ordinal:

        “With the elect kneeling before him, the Bishop with hands extended , having put off his mitre, says the Prayer of Ordination with hands extended:

        ‘…You sent Your Son into the world – the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus.

        ‘He offered Himself to You, through the Holy Spirit, without blemish; and His Apostles, sanctified in truth, He made partakers of His mission. To these men You added companions, in order to proclaim and carry into effect the work of salvation throughout the world.

        ‘Now likewise to our weakness, O Lord, we beseech You, generously bestow these helpers whom we require in the exercise of the apostolic priesthood.

        ‘Confer, we beseech You, Almighty Father, upon these Your servants the dignity of the priesthood…’”

        May they be, with us, faithful stewards of Your mysteries, so that Your people may be renewed through the regenerative waters of Baptism and refreshed from Your altar, and so that sinners may be reconciled and the sick comforted.

        May they be united with us, O Lord, in pleading for Your mercy — both for the people entrusted to them, and for the whole world.”

        • jim says:

          You could very reasonably read into that “Grant them the power to perform the sacraments”.

          But that is not what it says, nor is it what an old time puritan or a new time progressive would read into that.

          It is intentionally ambiguous, dancing on the edge of saying it.

  4. […] Apostolic Succession « Jim’s Blog […]

  5. […] Neo reaction means that conservatism has expired. There is nothing left to conserve. Reaction has ex… […]

  6. VXXC says:

    Pope’s not Catholic 550 years…No. This doesn’t hold any water. If you want to argue the Church and the Vatican [as usual] are going through another of their interminable corruptions then you have a point, and it’s happened before.

    Frankly the monasteries have preserved the faith – again and again – better than the Vatican.

    We got our John Paul II. That’s a thousand year event.

    Simply ignore them and endure.

    Mind you the rest of the post is pretty damn good. -we have only bad solutions.

    “These are bad neighborhoods.” “Yeah, well, I’m in a bad mood.” – Watchmen

  7. VXXC says:

    “Darwinism defends the natural rule of men over women.”

    Yet this is counter-historical to the point of counter-factual.

    Or..that is NOT what happened. Or is happening.

    He who forbears deeds is already a slave.

    • jim says:

      It is certainly what is happening. Roissy and Sunshine Mary both ground their positions on Darwinism. (Obviously Sunshine Mary invokes the old testament as well)

      Who among the anti Darwinist Christians is active on the issue that women should be subject to fathers and husbands?

      • VXXC says:

        Jim, you are citing the DEC/Reactosphere.

        In the larger world, Men are not out-competing women except in terms of job performance. Power wise women are advancing on the backs of men.

        The age of Darwin has been most unkind to men in practice.
        ==================================

        Now if it were just performance it would be laughable.

        As part of my job I have overheard for instance Wall St/London Traders on trading conference calls on private networks. They are doing 3 way, 4 way trades at a time in fractions, decimals. They are speaking slightly slower than an auctioneer, but that’s manners and professionalism and not lack of ability.

        I have never heard a female voice. This has held true across the board in my varied careers.

        It’s utter nonsense. You’re an ornament if anything physically or mentally stressful needs doing.
        ==================================

        But yet they are winning politically. Legally we become their slaves, with the status of labor in Saudi Arabia as soon as we say “I do.”

        They’re stronger than us. They’re certainly more ruthless. They’re winning. All is lost, but they have their victory.

        • jim says:

          The age of Darwin has been most unkind to men in practice.

          The age of holier-than-jesus has been most unkind to men in practice.

          Darwin’s “Descent of Man” was not published until 1871.

          The rot set in with George the Fourth’s unsuccessful attempt to divorce Queen Caroline. We then, in 1820, first see the doctrine that women are angels, with no sexual character, therefore do not need restraint, supervision, and discipline.

          This left wing doctrine, the angelhood of women, led the state’s destruction of the family, starting in England with the Matrimonial causes act of 1857. It set in a fair bit earlier in the US, though this is complicated to track in the US, being primarily done in state rather than federal law, with some US states obstinately holding out until the civil war, which was fought not only to free the slaves, but also, among other things, to destroy marriage and masculinity.

          The British Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 meant that a woman who left her husband had the legal status of an independent household, but not a man who left his wife – thus began what in due course became unilateral divorce at female whim, and the requirement for continuing moment to moment consent to sex, rather than consent to sex being formally given once and forever. A woman could wash her hands of her husband, but not a husband of his wife. Hence the 1860s begat the 1960s. Smash monogamy and all that. If a wife left her husband, perhaps in the hope (seldom realized) that her demon lover would visit her more frequently, she gained, under the 1857 Matrimonial causes act, full control of her income and finances, but did not automatically and immediately lose the husband’s obligation to support her. Every change since then as just been doubling down on that big 1857 change.

          The 1857 act fatally undermined the new testament prescription for marriage, in which both parties give consent to sex once and forever, and the wife submits to the husband.

        • Red says:

          >>But yet they are winning politically. Legally we become their slaves, with the status of labor in Saudi Arabia as soon as we say “I do.”

          Do you know why Bantu Africans are the preferred form of slave? They’re so very docile and easy to control when faced with the prospect of ruthless violence. If you don’t want your kind to be a slave you need to make it expensive to keep you as a slave.

        • Felipe says:

          > But yet they are winning politically. Legally we become their slaves,
          > with the status of labor in Saudi Arabia as soon as we say “I do.”
          >
          > They’re stronger than us. They’re certainly more ruthless.
          > They’re winning. All is lost, but they have their victory.

          When I read stuff like that from the non-religious right I get new confidence in Christianity. I’ve never heard such fear from man in the religious right, we can trust our wifes, and they respect the traditional Christian teaching in the subject, even if there is resistence it is generally defeated. Which seams to imply that we are doing something right.

          And it’s not a question of “they” vs “us”, since this notion is ridiculous anyway. Man and woman are not two antagonist groups, except it seams in the minds of feminists and “game theory” adherents. How could we be antagonists with our mothers, wifes, sisters? Our shared blood means we should be respectful and solidary to one another.

          • jim says:

            Read more Dalrock, and you will have less confidence in Christianity.

            Christian Churches are run by progressives, even though their congregations are relatively unprogressive. The objective of the Church leadership is to transform the silly old fashioned Christianity of their congregation into progressivism.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            I hope you’re not marrying a woman with which you share blood.

  8. Lesser Bull says:

    *rouble is that because the official Roman Catholic Church has not believed in Apostolic Succession for some time, Pope Francis arguably never got ordained*

    I’m not Catholic, but I don’t think this is true. It’s like saying that there was no genetic inheritance until Mendel.

    • jim says:

      Sex is something you do, that results in genetic inheritance whether you believe it or not.

      But apostolic succession is one man who has special power to perform sacraments granting another man special power to perform sacraments. Have to overtly grant it. And Pope Francis was never explicitly granted it.

      • Lesser Bull says:

        Why would you have to overtly grant it? It could come ex officio. There is nothing logically incoherent about the doctrine that sacramental power comes when someone who has sacramental power accidentally sneezes when shaking my hand, let alone what the RCCs are doing.

        I think there’s an interesting claim buried in here somewhere about loss of confidence and what rituals do sociologically, but its being obscured by the claim you’re making on the surface, which is false.

        • jim says:

          Sure, if you announced that doctrine and commanded all Catholics to believe it.

          But, before the 1960s, and as far back as anyone can recall, sacramental power was bestowed explicitly.

          Is sacramental power now bestowed implicitly? They have not said so. In fact, they have not said anything about it, because sacramental power is so embarrassingly old fashioned, and they kind of implicitly concede that the puritans are correct that it is unscriptural, as of course it is.

          • peppermint says:

            “Peter, you are my rock, and upon this rock I build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

            Did Jesus ordain Peter as the first pope? Did he grant Peter special power over the sacraments? Does that power flow through apostolic succession?

            • jim says:

              Yes, Jesus ordained Peter as the first pope. Granted him special power over sacraments. Far from clear that he did not grant lots of other people special power over sacraments:

              For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

              Which would seem to imply that the head of any Christian gathering can perform the Eucharist, just as any Christian can perform marriage.

              But, regardless of whether Apostolic succession is true, regardless of whether any Christian, or only certain Christians, can perform the Eucharist, you cannot have apostolic succession if the apostolic successors cease to act as if it were true. If the pope calls himself the Bishop or Rome, he is not the pope, and probably not the Bishop of Rome.

  9. Trouble is that because the official Roman Catholic Church has not believed in Apostolic Succession for some time

    Perhaps you are being TOO elliptical here… I cannot see any way this is true.

    Bergoglio was ordained Bishop by Cardinal Quarracino, and Bishops Calabresi and Ognenovich in 1992. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbergj.html and you can click all of them and so on and so on.

    • jim says:

      Ordination in Churches that believe in Apostolic succession has traditionally involved a ritual in which the ordaining priest grants the newly ordained priest special power to do sacraments. This element of the ritual was removed from most churches in the late sixties.

  10. james says:

    According to this Wiki, even the official Episcopal genealogies, before the mass renunciations of the Reformation, dead-end in the early modern period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipione_Rebiba

  11. Catholic says:

    The church hasn’t renounced it’s catholicity, ie. St. Peter/Rome and apostolic succession. What a strange thing to say.

    • jim says:

      Standard progressive ambiguity.

      Seems to me that when they dropped the line from ordination that they were empowering the priest to perform mass, they were conceding that they had no special power to perform mass – which does renounce catholicity.

      • That line wasn’t the only–and certainly not the essential–expression. The rite is full of language expressing the traditional understanding of the priestly office & function.
        ______________________________

        In the Ordinal promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 and revised in 1989 by John Paul II the following appears:

        1. From Those things which are to be noted beforehand: Part I: On the Importance of Ordination:

        “…They exercise their sacred office preeminently in the Eucharistic synaxis [congregation]…”

        2. From Those things which are to be noted beforehand: Part III: On the Celebration of Ordination:

        “…Through the imposition of the Bishop’s hands and the Prayer of Ordination, the gift of the Holy Spirit for the office of priesthood is conferred upon the candidates. However, these words pertain to the nature of the event, and in fact are required so that the act might be valid:

        We beseech Thee, Almighty Father: confer the dignity of the priesthood upon these your servants; renew within their hearts the Spirit of sanctity; may they obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God…’

        Immediately after the Prayer of Ordination, the Ordained are clothed with the priestly stole and chasuble, whereby their ministry, to be completed in the liturgy, may be outwardly manifested.

        This ministry is furthermore explained through other signs more diffusely: for through the anointing of the hands, the special participation of priests in the Priesthood of Christ is signified; and through the delivery of the bread and wine into their hands, the office of presiding at the celebration of the Eucharist, and of following Christ crucified, is revealed…”

        3. From the Rite of the Ordination of Priests:

        3A. “Once all have been seated, the Bishop then delivers the homily – in which, focusing his opening words on the text of the lessons which were read in the Liturgy of the Word, he addresses the people and elect on the office of priests. Now concerning such an office he may speak using these or similar words:

        …they are to be consecrated true priests of the New Testament in order to preach the
        Gospel, shepherd the People of God, and especially to celebrate divine worship in the Lord’s Sacrifice.

        …Likewise will you exercise the office of sanctifying in Christ. For through your ministry the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful shall be made perfect, bound to the Sacrifice of Christ — which together with those spiritual sacrifices shall be offered through your hands in an unbloody manner upon the altar in the celebration of the Mysteries.”

        3B. From The Promise of the Elect:

        “Bishop: Are you resolved to piously and faithfully celebrate the Mysteries of Christ to the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the sacrament of reconciliation?

        Elect: I am…”

        3C. From The Litany:

        “Dearly beloved, let us ask God our Almighty Father, that He should multiply heavenly gifts upon these His servants, whom He has chosen for the office of the priesthood…

        That You might be pleased to preserve the apostolic house and all ecclesiastical orders in holy religion… we beseech You, hear us.

        That You might be pleased to bless these elect… we beseech You, hear us.

        That You might be pleased to bless and sanctify these elect… we beseech You, hear us.

        “That You might be pleased to bless, sanctify, and consecrate these elect… we beseech You, hear us…

        3D. After the Litany:

        “Once the chanting of the litany is done, the Bishop, standing with his hands extended, says:
        Mercifully hear us, we beseech You, O Lord our God, and upon these your servants pour forth the blessing of the Holy Spirit and the power of priestly grace…”

        3E. From The Imposition of Hands and Prayer of Ordination [the essential part of the rite]:

        “With the elect kneeling before him, the Bishop with hands extended , having put off his mitre, says the Prayer of Ordination with hands extended:

        ‘…You sent Your Son into the world – the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus.

        ‘He offered Himself to You, through the Holy Spirit, without blemish; and His Apostles, sanctified in truth, He made partakers of His mission. To these men You added companions, in order to proclaim and carry into effect the work of salvation throughout the world.

        ‘Now likewise to our weakness, O Lord, we beseech You, generously bestow these helpers whom we require in the exercise of the apostolic priesthood.

        ‘Confer, we beseech You, Almighty Father, upon these Your servants the dignity of the priesthood…’”

        May they be, with us, faithful stewards of Your mysteries, so that Your people may be renewed through the regenerative waters of Baptism and refreshed from Your altar, and so that sinners may be reconciled and the sick comforted.

        May they be united with us, O Lord, in pleading for Your mercy — both for the people entrusted to them, and for the whole world.”

        3F. From The anointing of the hands and tradition of the bread and wine:

        “Afterwards the Bishop… anoints with sacred chrism the palms of the hands of each Ordained kneeling before him, saying: May Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom the Father anointed in the Holy Spirit and truth, keep you in order to sanctify the Christian people and offer sacrifice to God.

        While the Ordained are vested with stole and chasuble, and while the Bishop anoints their hands, the antiphon is chanted:

        Christ the Lord [is] a Priest forever according to the order of
        Melchisedech, he offered bread and wine, allelulia.

        Then the faithful bring forward bread upon a paten, and a chalice – into which wine and water have been poured – for the celebration of Mass. The Deacon receives these things and brings them to the Bishop, who delivers the same into the hands of each Ordained kneeling before him, saying:

        Receive the offering of the holy people to be offered to God. Know what you are about; imitate that which you handle; and conform your life to the mystery of the Lord’s cross.”

        3G. From The Rite of Conclusion:

        “…Then the Bishop, with his hands extended over the Ordained and the people, offers the blessing:

        May God, the Founder and Ruler of the Church, constantly protect you by His grace, so that you may fulfill the gifts of the priesthood with a faithful heart.

        All respond: Amen.

        Bishop: May He make you servants and witnesses of divine charity and truth in the world, and faithful ministers of reconciliation.

        All respond: Amen.

        Bishop: May He also make you true pastors who give the living bread and the Word of life to the faithful, so that they might grow more in the unity of the Body of Christ.

        All respond: Amen.”

  12. Red says:

    >>We must look to some different defense of order. Micro economics defends the capitalist order. Darwinism defends the natural rule of men over women and superior races over inferior races.

    Neither capitalism nor darwinism provides that synthetic tribe that’s required form a cohesive whole of a population. Without that cohesive populace you don’t have power to defend anything.

    • jim says:

      Yes. You are quite right.

      Reality cannot provide tribal identity.

      But, the problem with leftism is that unreality provides tribal identity.

      Puritans had an identity that rested on beliefs about the next world. Transliterating them to this world caused problems.

      Christianity is pretty much dead, except to the extent that it has become progressivism. So white people don’t have any identity except suicidal and self destructive progressive self hatred. The only good thing a white person can do, short of killing himself, is to refrain from reproduction and adopt a black child.

      Progressivism provides an identity for assorted minorities, defined by hatred of white heterosexual males. Nothing like an enemy and repeated rehearsal of grievances to provide tribal identity.

  13. josh says:

    Why was Francis not ordained?

    • jim says:

      His ordination did not grant him power over sacraments, because it failed to say, or act out, the granting of power over sacraments.

      • Lucas says:

        Could you edit that point in? I was able to piece together that you meant that, but it left me confused for a few lines.

          • josh says:

            “The *essential rite of the sacrament* of Holy Orders for all three degrees consists in the bishop’s imposition of hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop’s specific consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate is being ordained.60

            Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father’s right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today.61 Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops.62

            “1576 Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the “gift of the Spirit,”63 the “apostolic line.”64 Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.65”

            The Holy Spirit confers the Holy Orders to men chosen by Christ. Are you suggesting that because the right magic words are not uttered this is no longer vaild despite the fact that the laying of hands has always been the essential rite of the sacrament of Holy Orders? We aren’t Kabbalists, Jim.

            • jim says:

              The difference between patting someone one the head, and ordaining them into holy orders, is in what the action means, is in the intent and meaning.

              Are you arguing that the power to perform sacraments can be transferred without express intent, like a cold?

              The expressed intent changed in the 1960s.

              You may believe that only a priest may validly perform the Eucharist, but the Vatican does not, or finds it politically incorrect to express such a belief out loud where too many people might hear. Not believing, or unwilling to express that belief, therefore not able to transmit such a supposed power.

          • Josh says:

            If you are arguing the bishops do not believe they ar conferring the sacrament of holy orders is plainly crazy. If they are, regardless of wording, the Church is the Church and a bishop is a bishop. The consecration of the Eucharist by the bishopric is a power granted by the Holy Spirit. One can not partially be a Bishop. If we’re making Bishops pouring out the Holy Spirit in a continuos line going back to the Apostles, we have Apostolic succession.

            Are you suggesting the intent is just a pat on the head?

          • “Not believing, or unwilling to express that belief, therefore not able to transmit such a supposed power.”

            The belief is expressed in the rite. See below.

            A main purpose of Vatican II was to enable the laity to participate more closely with the priest in the Eucharistic action. The priest still leads, masses can’t be done without him, and he can perform it without the laity’s presence. Therefore, the clergy-laity distinction has been maintained.

Leave a Reply for Catholic