Expert: Griff Ruby - 1/3/2011

Question
QUESTION: i was studying the case of the new rite of episciopal orders recently and i had this question which was bugging me. even though the new rite of episcopal orders has a new form for ordaining bishops, other parts of the rite mention a high priesthood and allude to the grace of the holy spirit. now, in the orthodox church, the priest, as he says the words of consecration does not intend to change the gread and wine into the body and blood of christ as this has already occured during the eclipsis (i learned this from an orthodox priest) therefore, even though the form acepted by paul vi and his successors is invalid, this should not be concerning as the part they consider ceromonial can acyually make up the form for the sacrament. also, isn't the tradition of st. hippolytus from where this new text comes a valid catholic rite?

ANSWER: You seem to be asking two separate questions, one relating to the new ceremony for making "bishops" (which has grave reasons for doubt as to its validity), and then you move on to the question of the consecration of the host and wine in Mass.
As to your first question, for this I defer to the experts who are trained in this:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NotTruBps1.pdf
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpCelierWeb.pdf
As to the second, the epiclesis is essential to the validity of the consecration, but the schismatic East Orthodox errs in claiming that the moment of transubstantiation comes with the epiclesis (which actually is given in various prayers in many points within the Mass, both before and after the actual form of the Sacrament).  However this does not seem to be affected if events interrupt a Mass between the form and the epiclesis (should the principle epiclesis come after it, which it does in the Schismatic liturgies but not in the Roman-approved liturgies), as long as the intention to say it was present.  The epiclesis is not a part of the form.  However, as the epiclesis is something far more stressed within the Eastern traditions I must admit that my familiarity with that is not what my familiarity with the Form of the Sacrament (as focused on by the Western tradition) is, so this is as much as I can provide regarding the epiclesis.
Finally, while the Novus Ordo claims to use the "tradition of St. Hippolytus" (actually dating from a time that he was an antipope), their "Eucharistic Prayer Number 2" in fact has extremely little in common with the prayer of Hippolytus, and indeed much that it contains is outright deleted.


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Give me anything and everything that you've got. I am researching not just for myself but for other trads in my area who have expressed concerns regarding the new rite. if you want to run wild and write an essay that will take a week instead of 3 days to thorughly debunk every arguement, knoch yourself out. actually, it was really one question that i asked, and it was in defence of holy orders. The idea is that though the words of consecration have been deleted, the other prayers which mention "high priesthood" etc. could make up for the missing prayer albiet ambigously.

Answer
I've already given you pretty much what I've got.  One other thing that has occurred to me regarding your question is that of whether an ordination (or consecration) performed in a Mass is valid even if the Mass is not.  I have not come across any theologians on this, but it seems to me quite reasonable to believe that the validity of the Mass (consecration of the host and wine to be the Body and Blood of our Lord) would be independent of the validity of the ordination/consecration of a man to the priesthood or any other rank of Holy Orders.  Picture the scenario in which a valid bishop ordains a properly trained and qualified man to the priesthood, and using the traditional Mass and all traditional formulas, with the one exception that the matter is invalid (he uses Oreo cookies and Coca-cola instead of pure wheat bread and grape wine).  Since the Form, Matter, Intent, and Minister of the ordination would all be correct the man would be a priest, since these things could conceivably be done outside of a Mass, for example in an emergency situation where there is no time for a Mass (e. g. in a prison or dire and immediate persecution).  The only way that might not be so would have to be if the use of invalid matter for the Mass could be construed to be an indication of some failure to have any or sufficient intention to ordain the man to the priesthood.  That would probably be a matter of circumstance, for example if the invalid matter used simulated the correct matter better than Oreos and Coca-cola such that the ordaining bishop was unaware of the substitution until it was far too late.
One other thing I can point you to is to look up "Anaphora of Hippolytus" and compare it against the Novus Ordo "Eucharistic Prayer Number 2" which they claim is based on it.  Even a cursory glance at the two should show that about the only thing they might have in common is their length, which is rather short.  This at least provides an easily supportable basis for my mention at the end about how "the Novus Ordo claims to use the 'tradition of St. Hippolytus'" and that claim is patently and obviously false.
Please bear in mind that what I do or don't know about these issues of Sacramental Theology are based on my wide reading on the topic, not any specific training in the area.  Of the Mass itself and its validity it is easy to find, in Quo Primum, in De Defectcibus, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and so forth, while regarding the validity of Holy Orders the information I have come across is far more limited and for that reason I can only give you some general principles and ideas of where to start looking, but for more than that I am constrained to defer to those who are specifically trained in that.
What I can also suggest you do is got through Fr. Cekada's articles (cited in my first response) and then look up the references given as footnotes.  Track down the texts.  Many of them exist only in Latin, but if you can read Latin then that will give you quite an advantage in understanding the background principles by which you can evaluate the interpretations and applications given them by Fr. Cekada.  Don't just look of the actual quotes to see that they are there, but read the whole works, or at least as many whole chapters as seem even remotely applicable to the topic at hand, in order to give yourself a good solid overall feel for the "lay of the land" as to how the Church truly understands the topic.  That has been the "secret" of what things I do know.
I know it seems humble to believe that such original texts might be way above one's level, as if it should only be read by someone much wiser and better educated than oneself, but all the truly best writings will tend to be understandable if only one takes the time to actually read them through.  Even so, there can be times when something does not seem clear and one might have questions, and then the problem here is that there is barely anyone left to ask.  But then by going to all (and not merely one) sources cited and so reading them all, then the gaps left by one may often be filled in by another.  If you can get these sources in the original Latin and read them all slowlu, thoroughly, carefully, and multiple times, bouncing one against the other until a clear consensus gels within your mind, then you will be far ahead of anything I can give you.
I think with that I have taken your question as far as I can.