"Fr." John Hunwicke operates a blog called "Mutual Enrichment" (http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/). An Anglican heretic, Hunwicke joined the Vatican II sect and was "ordained" a "priest" in 2012. A reader brought my attention to his post entitled "Invalidists" which may be read at: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/02/invalidists.html?m=1. Mr. Hunwicke informs his readers that he will not enable comments which claim "that PF ["Pope" Francis] is not (or might not be) the true Bishop of Rome." Translation: Sedevacantism, the Catholic teaching that a heretic can neither attain to (or remain) pope, is forbidden. Not satisfied with trashing authentic Catholic teaching, he goes on to state,"For similar reasons, I do not enable comments which say, suggest or imply that the Orders of the post-Conciliar Latin Church are not (or might not be) valid." Considering he was "ordained" in the post-V2 rite, such a comment would (correctly) impugn his own alleged priesthood.
Hunwicke tells us, "But I have an additional personal reason for not enabling 'invalidist' comments. Only three or four weeks ago, I published a series "Are they really bishops?" in which I discussed this subject in case such discussion might be helpful to people who had been unsettled by Invalidists. I deployed a lot of facts. On the basis of these facts, I asked lots of questions. I have never received, from these lofty and omniscient individuals, any suggested answers to any of my questions." His series of posts (three) are from 12/31/18, 1/3/19, and 1/4/19. This post will respond to Mr. Hunwicke's challenge, with the proviso that I'm neither lofty nor omniscient, just down-to-earth and logical.
Hunwicke's Preliminary Argument to Sedevacantists
Hunwicke writes:
The preliminary logical question to be put to those who find themselves tempted by Sedevacantism is: "You claim to hold the basic Catholic dogmas that the Church is indefectible; and that the Bishop of Rome holds a unique and God-given place within the life of that Church. How many more decades does the Roman See have to be vacant before these combined doctrines become impossible for sedevacantists to hold?
Answer: According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)
Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448).
According to theologian O'Reilly who discussed the Great Western Schism, "There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (See The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays pg. 287; Emphasis mine).
Therefore, Indefectibility and a very long interregnum are by no means incompatible as Hunwicke thinks. The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church. It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as an "heretical pope"--an oxymoron).
Hunwicke's First Attempted Defense of the Post-Conciliar (New) Rite of Episcopal Consecration
It is suggested that the 'form' used in the post-Vatican II rites for the consecration of a Bishop (which is what I am going to concentrate upon) is insufficiently precise. But any language, and any specialised (sic) subform of any language, has its own internal logic. If the Church, in the new rites, in effect says "We decree that the words spiritus principalis or pneuma hegemonikon hereafter and herein are to have the meaning of episkope", then that is the meaning those words do have, even if they didn't have it beforehand. Just as legislatures enacting legislation, or solicitors composing legal agreements, commonly begin by defining terms ("within this Act/Agreement, the term The Society shall be deemed to mean the United Society of Water Diviners and Weak Beer Drinkers of the Parish of Little Snottingham in the Parliamentary Constituency of West Barsetshire").
Reply: A quick background is in order. The precise matter (material or sensible things used) and form (the necessary words which are used) of the Sacrament of Holy Orders was not definitively settled until November 29, 1947 when Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. The Pontiff decreed, "As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows:...in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.”
[English: "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."]
Pope Pius also decreed in that same Constitution: "...that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense."
Therefore, to be valid, the form (necessary words) of Holy Orders must (a) invoke the grace of the Holy Ghost, and unambiguously determine (b) the rank of order conferred (deacon, priest, or bishop). In the Traditional Rite this is done. "The fullness of Thy ministry" when spoken to a priest being consecrated can only mean the order of bishop. The "Heavenly anointing" signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, to be valid, the form (necessary words) of Holy Orders must (a) invoke the grace of the Holy Ghost, and unambiguously determine (b) the rank of order conferred (deacon, priest, or bishop). In the Traditional Rite this is done. "The fullness of Thy ministry" when spoken to a priest being consecrated can only mean the order of bishop. The "Heavenly anointing" signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost.
The new Rite changes the form to "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." In English this translates as, "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from Thee, the governing Spirit whom Thou gave to Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be Thy temple for the unceasing glory and praise of Thy name." Where is the order of bishop univocally signified? The term "governing Spirit" is subject to many different meanings, and therefore it is ambiguous. (For an excellent synopsis of this problem see the work of Fr. Anthony Cekada, "Why The New Bishops Are Not True Bishops" at http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NotTruBps1.pdf).
There are two problems with Hunwicke's defense. There was no official decree (assuming, ad arguendo, Montini was a valid pope) declaring that the "governing Spirit" means the office of bishop. Second, his analogy to legal documents fails. He seems to think that civil law, or in this case the Church, can make any words mean whatever She wants them to mean. Imagine if in my legal practice I refer to the plaintiff not as "the plaintiff" but "the idiot who annoys me." While the latter may be more accurate in certain cases, it is unprofessional, insulting, and a lack of proper nomenclature. But can't the Church determine Her nomenclature? If She could disregard millennia of accepted usage, the "Hail Mary" could be rendered as "Glorify Satan." If this makes you uncomfortable, it should. Third, if I once more concede, ad arguendo, that "governing Spirit" means the order of bishop, where is the grace of the Holy Ghost mentioned? The fact that "Spirit" is capitalized could mean that "governing Spirit" is a reference to the Holy Ghost, but then it couldn't mean the office of bishop as well. One phrase meaning two distinct things is hardly "univocal" or "unambiguous."
It is this ridiculous idea that "words don't matter" that lead to the debacle of Ratzinger and Wojtyla declaring as valid a "mass" that contains no Words of Consecration. In 2001, the Modernist Vatican issued Guidelines For Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (2001). It allows for "intercommunion" between members of an Eastern Rite of Vatican II sect and Nestorian heretics. The heretics have no Words of Consecration (or "Institution Narrative" as the Vatican II sect calls it). Yet it is a valid "mass" without any mention of "Body" and "Blood" of Christ because "...the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora (Canon) of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession." So without mentioning the Body and Blood of Christ, transubstantiation takes place because they are somehow "integrated" through prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession. This nonsense is unheard of in all of Catholic theology prior to Vatican II.
Is it any wonder Hunwicke thinks that any words can be sufficient for any sacrament? Anyone who believes (as Hunwicke must if he adheres to Bergoglio and his sect) that the Words of Consecration can be "integrated" in prayers where the words "body" and "blood" don't exist, will have no problem accepting any form for any sacrament.
The Church teaches: "It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament is invalid." (See Aquinas, Summa III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
"It is well known that to the church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments." (See Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono, 1910).
"It [the Council] furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the Sacraments, their substance remaining untouched, it might ordain, or change, what things soever it might judge most expedient for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said Sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places." (See Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2; Emphasis mine).
Furthermore, as the theologians teach, the form of a sacrament is that by which the matter receives its proximate sacramental determination. Hence, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine are the matter and the Words of Consecration signify the change into the Body and Blood of Christ. By consecrating the bread first and the wine second, the separation of the Precious Blood from Christ's Body is mystically re-presented in an unbloody manner perpetuating the one Sacrifice of Christ. (See, e.g., theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 307). The Church has been around almost 2,000 years, and has long since determined the essential components of the Sacraments; almost certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of Tradition and cannot be changed at will--not by any ecclesiastical authority including the pope or an Ecumenical Council--as the teaching above makes clear. The Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were determined minutely ("in specie"), not simply in a general way ("in genere") to be more precisely determined by the Church as in the case with the other five Sacraments..
There is no one instance where any pope, theologian, canonist, or council of the Church has taught that the words "body" and "blood" were not part of the form. It was universally accepted and taught that any such form that omitted those words would be null and void. Ratzinger and Wojtyla dared to change that teaching in 2001. How can there be a problem of words being ambiguous when the men you recognize as "popes" teach that specific words set down by Christ Himself for the form of a Sacrament need not even be present?
Furthermore, as the theologians teach, the form of a sacrament is that by which the matter receives its proximate sacramental determination. Hence, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine are the matter and the Words of Consecration signify the change into the Body and Blood of Christ. By consecrating the bread first and the wine second, the separation of the Precious Blood from Christ's Body is mystically re-presented in an unbloody manner perpetuating the one Sacrifice of Christ. (See, e.g., theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 307). The Church has been around almost 2,000 years, and has long since determined the essential components of the Sacraments; almost certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of Tradition and cannot be changed at will--not by any ecclesiastical authority including the pope or an Ecumenical Council--as the teaching above makes clear. The Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were determined minutely ("in specie"), not simply in a general way ("in genere") to be more precisely determined by the Church as in the case with the other five Sacraments..
There is no one instance where any pope, theologian, canonist, or council of the Church has taught that the words "body" and "blood" were not part of the form. It was universally accepted and taught that any such form that omitted those words would be null and void. Ratzinger and Wojtyla dared to change that teaching in 2001. How can there be a problem of words being ambiguous when the men you recognize as "popes" teach that specific words set down by Christ Himself for the form of a Sacrament need not even be present?
Hunwicke's Straw Man
Mr. Hunwicke writes, It is argued that the phrase spiritus principalis is insufficiently precise because it is used in some dissident communities in the prayer which is said over a man who is already a bishop but is now being constituted a Patriarch. So ... are you, O ye sedevacantists, saying: "Originally this prayer, used for centuries to consecrate bishops, was adequate; but now, since some dissident communities began to use it for a different purpose, it has become insufficient, even in those communities where it is not used for blessing Patriarchs?" If so, I would regard this argument as absurdly and unconvincingly rococo.
That's not the argument at all. The new Rite was several times defended by an appeal to forms in the Eastern Rites. However, those Rites use the term for the installation of a bishop as Patriarch, not as a sacramental form of Holy Orders. The same would hold for the Eastern Schismatics.
(See Fr. Cekada, http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)
(See Fr. Cekada, http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf)
Does He or Doesn't He?
Hunwicke writes:
Pius XII (1947) laid down that the Form in the (then) Roman Pontifical for consecrating a Bishop was Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam etc..
(1) Are you quite sure, O thou sedevacantist, that this is explicit enough? If I have up my sleeve (I'm not saying I do) an example of a medieval pope who, already being a bishop, had this read over him when he was promoted to the See of Peter, would you conclude that it automatically became too vague to signify the Episcopate? If not, why not?
(2) And if I have up my sleeve early manuscripts of this prayer (I'm not saying I do) which read mysterii rather than ministerii, will this variant still be explicit enough for you? If not, will you admit that very many medieval bishops, consecrated with the use of this form, were not validly consecrated, including almost certainly many popes? If not, why not?
(3) And if I have up my sleeve (I'm not saying I do) a medieval rite of presbyteral ordination in which that same formula was used to ordain a mere priest, would you still be consistent enough to advance the argument that the words, since they were used in a context other than episcopal consecration, manifestly do not univocally signify the episcopate? And that therefore most, if not all, medieval and later Western bishops were not validly ordained? If not, why not?
I know I'm showing my age, but I couldn't help but think of that 1970s men's hair dye commercial, "Does he or doesn't he? Only his barber knows!" Does Mr. Hunwicke actually have such documents "up his sleeve"? Even if he does, the full text would have to be known to properly respond. So on lack of citation alone, his contentions could be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, as to..
(1) Was the same form used for installation of the pope as for consecration of a bishop? He got the Eastern Rite wrong, so no reason to think he got this correct either.
(2) If It reads, "The fullness of Thy Mystery" instead of "ministry" it may very well be sufficient as it would read "Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy mystery and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing." It would be a case for the pope to decide, but it could refer to the fullness of the priesthood and the "mysteries" they confect--"the mystery of Faith"--and the ability to impart that power to new priests. The term "governing Spirit"in the new Rite could mean the grace of the Holy Ghost, but if so, where is the order of bishop? If it refers to the order of bishop, where is the grace of the Holy Ghost? The new form lacks at least one of the essential elements to be valid.
(3) How could a priestly ordination read "Perfect in Thy priest..."if the man is not already a priest? Hunwicke makes no sense with his "possibly existing documents" up his proverbial sleeve.
Look! Nothing Up My Sleeve
Whereas Mr. Hunwicke has all of his hypothetical documents up his sleeve, I have nothing to hide. According to theologian Tixeront, the oldest of episcopal consecration forms did use the very similar term "guiding Spirit." The term was employed to mean the grace of the Holy Ghost, not the office of bishop which is clearly signified later in the form! Although much longer than the new form of Vatican II, it is incredibly similar in words and tone, but it also adds that which is conspicuously absent in the Vatican II invalid form.
Here is the entire form used, according to Tixeront:
"O God and father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, who dwellest in the heavens and considerest what lies below, who knowest all things before they happen: Thou, Who art the Author of ordinances of the Church by the word of Thy grace; who hast from the beginning predestined the just family of Abraham, appointing masters and priests, not permitting Thy sanctuary to be without a ministry; Who, since the creation of the world, delightest to be glorified in those whom Thou hast chosen; bestow now the power---which cometh from Thee---of the guiding Spirit Whom Thou didst give give to Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, which He in turn communicated to the holy Apostles, who established the Church to take the place of Thy sanctuary, for the glory and unending praise of Thy Name. Thou Who knowest all hearts, give to this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate, to feed Thy holy flock, and to fulfill for Thee the offices of High Priest without reproach, serving Thee day and night; unceasingly to appear before Thee as an intercessor, and to offer Thee the gifts of Holy Church; and by the spirit of the sovereign priesthood, to have the power to forgive sins, according to Thy commandment, to bestow the ecclesiastical functions according to Thy order, to release from all bonds, according to the power which Thou hast given to the Apostles, and to please Thee in meekness and purity of heart, while offering to Thee an odor of sweetness; by Thy Son, Our Savior Jesus Christ, to Whom with Thee and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, and honor world without end. Amen." ( See Holy Orders and Ordination, B. Herder Book Co., [1928], pgs. 151-152 and note 31 incorporated; Emphasis mine).
Notice that the "guiding Spirit" refers to the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order of bishop is clearly expressed in the phrases "chosen for the episcopate" and "offices of High Priest." Theologian Tixeront places this form as originating in the third century! So much for hidden documents from antiquity whose very existence (let alone authenticity) and complete context is unknown.
What Did Cardinal Gasparri Really Say?
With no citation (again), Hunwicke claims Cardinal Gasparri (the great theologian behind the 1917 Code of Canon Law) taught that the words "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" ["Receive the Holy Ghost"] was sufficient to confer the episcopacy. He also writes:
In any case, before 1947, the communis sententia [common teaching] among approved manualists (this is summed up by Cardinal Gasparri, 1852-1934, Secretary of State under Benedict XV and Pius XI) saw the Form for episcopal Consecration as being three quite different words: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. Bishops, when consecrating a new bishop before 1947, intended to consecrate him when they opened their mouths and said these words, not when they uttered the words which Pius XII subsequently selected and declared to be the Form.
I doubt it. Pope Leo XIII in declaring his heretical Anglican sect's orders invalid stated:
"But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3)." (See Apostolicae Curae, 1896, para. #25; Emphasis mine). If "Receive the Holy Ghost" was insufficient to bestow the priesthood, are we to believe it is nevertheless valid in consecrating a bishop; one who receives the "fullness of the priesthood"?
Conclusion
Mr. Hunwicke writes as if Traditionalists decide things on their own, when it is painfully apparent that while we use approved pre-Vatican II theology, he simply shows that he fails to understand many basics of that theology. Indefectibility and sedevacantism are not incompatible with each other. The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments instituted by Christ. The form of a Sacrament cannot be made by using any words whatsoever. His defense of the new form for Episcopal Consecration is without merit; the form does not both signify the grace of the Holy Ghost and the specific order conferred-- as Pope Pius XII decreed it must. Indeed, one of the oldest forms clearly shows that "guiding Spirit"--used like "governing Spirit"--refers to the Holy Ghost and His grace. Later in that form the office of bishop is clearly and unambiguously expressed. When all things are examined, Hunwicke has proven only one thing: that his blog and Catholic theology are "Mutually Exclusive."
