Why Novus Ordo bishops are utterly null, void, worthless, and harmful

By Thilo Stopka

Novus Ordo bishops have more in common with Druids than with the Apostles or with their successors. Both Druids and any other counterreligious officer are anointed in the name of the Spirit Who Governs This World, aka Satan.


On June 18, 1968, the Church experienced Paul VI’s “promulgation” of the Apostolic Constitution “Pontificalis Romani Recognitio”. This constitution abolished the traditional rite of the consecration of bishops and replaced it with an artificial product, a rite unprecedented in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. For that, all sorts of bogus reasons were pleaded. The most popular of them still is that the new pontifical is a masterpiece of traditional Eastern liturgy and therefore a crowning achievement of ecumenism. For example, a few years ago the liturgical scientist Heinzgerd Brakmann, at that time a lecturer at the University of Bonn, exalted this new rite of episcopal consecration in an essay, even if he also provided proof that this rite was based on pseudo-apostolic and pseudo-epigraphic literature.

Any comparison with the rites with which there was supposed to be a close resemblance was only made from a literary and poetic point of view; the differences of a dogmatic nature with regard to the doctrine of Christ and of the Holy Ghost were not even touched upon. But a closer examination reveals that this new ordo tramples on the doctrine of the incarnation of the Eternal Word and mutilates that of the Holy Ghost. This rite is addressed to a so-called god, who is not our God of revelation which He has entrusted to the Catholic Church. Consequently, the rite can not be valid and it destroys the apostolic succession of the bishops.

Thus, the Conciliar Church no longer has a sacrament of ordination, and after fifty years, its ministers are almost all laymen who lack the indelible priestly character, especially this clown and court jester of the EU “Francisco Bergoglio”. The still valid successions of the former Catholic oriental churches are also extinguished by their being blended with invalid ones by the occidental Novus Ordo hierarchies (John Paul II “consecrated” the metropolitan of Kiev after the end of the Cold War).

A central element of the new form of episcopal consecration is the expression “spiritus principalis”. The “Church” of the Second Vatican Council has not thought it necessary to define this expression (including in its various translations into vernacular languages) in a binding way. Why is this expression so important to the Conciliar Church? What does it mean to the Conciliar Sect? And even though we and others wrote books on the issue of the invalidity of the new Pontifical years ago, so far no one has addressed the doctrine of this new “Church” concerning the Holy Ghost, and what this novel teaching is all about, and if it is seen as linked with the “spiritus principalis”. Who or what is this “spirit”? A binding translation and an explanation in the vernacular versions which would provide more clarity is, strangely, nowhere to be found, although in English it reads as the “governing spirit”.

We have dealt in the past with six different reasons for which this new rite must be invalid. Of these, not a single one has been disproved to our satisfaction. In this relatively short booklet we are almost exclusively concerned with the question of how invalidity is related to the “spiritus principalis”. In fact, we are encountering a seventh reason for invalidity: the “conciliar sect” makes no distinction between the formal cause of the high-priesthood in Christ Himself and the formal cause of the consecration of the apostles. It may astonish traditional Catholics to hear that the difference is an infinite one. It is the difference between the infinite and non-created existence of God who became Man on the one hand, an existence which is that of the Eternal Word Incarnate; and, on the other hand, the finite, created power of the priestly character, which confers only a limited participation in the priesthood of the Redeemer.

The above-mentioned fact is denied by the new form of consecration, which puts something else in its place. It sees the formal cause of the priestly ordination of the Redeemer on one hand, and that of the apostles and their successors on the other , in one and the same thing: in the “spiritus principalis”! This “spiritus principalis” would then have to be the real priest, but not Jesus of Nazareth, for Christ’s dependence on the “spiritus principalis” would be the same as that of the apostles. The ordained priest could then not act, in virtue of the consecrated priestly character, “in the Person of Christ”; on the contrary according to the Novus Ordo form, both Christ and the apostles work in an identical way through the “spiritus principalis”. A direct relationship of the Catholic priesthood to Christ thus could not exist because both, He and the ordained priests, would have a parallel relationship with the “spiritus principalis”.

This alone satisfies the requirements of blasphemy! The new rite of episcopal consecration acts as if the true God-Man Jesus Christ was in need of an alien power for the purpose of his redemptive work. This is an ecclesiastical crime of the first order, the abomination of desolation in the holy place, of which the Savior warned us. The doctrines of the great ecumenical councils are overthrown as if they were not worth the paper they were written on. Particularly noteworthy here is the great Council of Ephesus, but also the Second Council of Constantinople, where already the first controversy regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son (filioque) was held and decided, although few historians understood its significance. The new rite of “episcopal consecration” is a Luciferian rite of initiation which denies the Divinity of Christ by pretending to bestow the plenitude of the priesthood of the New Covenant at the precise moment of this so-called consecration.

This study is dedicated to this subject. Any readers who are interested in further information are encouraged to study the books and websites referred to at the end of the brochure, which provide rich sources.

The formal cause

The new rite, we have said, blasphemously asserts an identical formal cause, the “spiritus principalis”, in respect of the high-priesthood of the Man-God Jesus Christ and the apostolic priesthood of ordination conferred on mere human beings. But what is a formal cause?

In scholastic philosophy, the formal cause (causa formalis) is that cause or principal which determines the form, that is, the morphology , the structure, the essence of a being; in addition to the material cause (causa materialis), efficient cause (causa efficiens) and final cause or finality (causa finalis), it is one of the four types of causes already to be found in the metaphysics of Aristotle.

The principal of the formal cause, like the material cause, is an internal cause of every (created) being. It simply consists in the form or appearance (Greek: ‘idea’ or ‘eidos’), the structure or the pattern found in beings. The bronze statue, for example, arises from the fact that the material bronze (material cause) is molded in the form of the statue.

Scholastic philosophy often equates the principal of formal causes with the exemplary cause (causa exemplaris), which is largely identical with the Platonic idea (Greek idea). In this sense, for example, the living horse represents the “formal cause” of a toy horse in its outward appearance. However, the deeper,metaphysical meaning of the term “formal cause” is aimed at the inner determination of a thing, that is, at its essence.

Next we have to look at the new form of the consecration of bishops itself. It is called form analogically because it gives the matter, in this case to the “unformed” and the ambiguous laying on of hands, its very specific meaning.

The new form in Latin and in vernacular translation

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.

„And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom be gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name.“

The form has the sole task of depicting what the sacramental ministry of ordination of the bishop consists of. First of all we realize that there is nothing in this new form to express, in the traditional sense, what the episcopacy is. This fact alone renders the rite invalid, because the sacramental form must necessarily contain either the recognized designation or name for the specific degree of the Holy Orders (bishop, priest, deacon) or otherwise designate its sacramental power bestowed (for instance: ’plenitude of the priesthood’) and the sacramental grace infused (e.g. the grace to be a good shepherd). This was emphasized by the English bishops in their reply to the Anglicans in defense of the Bull in which Pope Leo XIII declared the Anglican Orders null and void [A Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’, 1897]. Incidentally, in his book on the invalidity of the new episcopal consecration, Johannes Rothkranz also stated that the new form had absolutely nothing to say about episcopal order in a traditional sense in se (see the references at the end of this booklet), as did Fr. Anthony Cekada.

What is the sense of the new form as given to it by the Conciliar Sect?

But now we turn our attention to the meaning which the sect of the II Vatican Council must give to those words which it presents as the form of the sacrament. For it combines the presentation and the explanation of the episcopate, as it sees it, with an explanation of the priesthood of Christ according to its own interpretation.

Purely regarding the shape of the new sacramental form, it suggests that the formal cause, that is, the formative principle of the priesthood of the Redeemer, on the one hand, and the priesthood of the apostles, on the other hand, is one and the same, the “spiritus principalis”. And this latter, depending on the national vernacular version, is also translated with a different meaning (either personal or as an impersonal power only). At this point, we are not even turning to its true meaning, which we will do later, but simply state that according to the Council and the reformers, it is simply due to one and the same thing, for Christ and for apostles or bishops, that they are priests!

The new form asserts the identity of the formal cause of the priesthood of Christ and that of the apostles

From this we conclude: The metaphysical quality and structure of the priesthood of Jesus Christ would be identical with that of his apostles and their successors, if this new form were right. The inference is compelling, for the new form states that precisely that ‘might or power (Latin: virtus, Greek: dynamis)’ which is from God and that is one and the same as the ‘spiritus principalis’, was first given to the Son who could then pass it on to the apostles so that they could act in Christ’s stead to build the Church worldwide. So the question is, is the priesthood of Christ really of the same quality and metaphysical structure as that of the apostles? But isn’t it, one could ask with a degree of worry and alarm, that the Catholic priest as it is said in Latin, is an ‘alter Christus’, ‘another’ or ‘second savior’? Indeed, he is, but not in the sense of a full identity of his priesthood with that of Christ, but only in the sense of a limited participation in Christ’s high priesthood!

So we have to look more closely at what exactly makes Christ a high priest and mediator, and also by what the apostles and their successors the bishops are.

As the incarnate Son of God, Christ is High Priest of the New Covenant by the very nature of Incarnation itself

In Jesus Christ, the person of the Son assumed human nature in relation to his divine nature insofar as the unity ratio of the two natures is the hypostasis of the Eternal Son, without separation and without mixing of the two. More precisely, the Son assumed human nature, capable of suffering and passion, in order to offer as High Priest and Man-God, on the Cross, the only atonement and propitiatory sacrifice pleasing to God to save the whole human race fallen into sin. The apostles, on the other hand, are not priests by nature; it is only through their indelible priestly character that Jesus Christ gave them that they are priests. This priestly character in the souls of the apostles leads to a simple participation in the High Priesthood of Christ. Christ, on the other hand, is a priest by his mission, the incarnation itself.

But, one could argue, could not the Holy Ghost cause the incarnation in Christ and the priestly character in the apostles, too? That would be a misunderstanding, because we are not dealing with the efficient cause here (causa efficiens), but we are talking about the formal cause!

The real cause of the Incarnation is the Holy Trinity as such. True, according to the Holy Scriptures, one can attribute the effect of the incarnation to a single Divine Person, namely the Holy Ghost (cf Luke 1, 35). That’s not the point here! Rather, it is about the formal principle, the inner quality and nature of each of the two priesthoods, not how it is externally brought about.

Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor: the Incarnation of the Son does not consist in the mediation of the Holy Ghost

So the question is: did the Incarnation of the Son take place by means of the Holy Ghost, whom the conciliar sect termed “spiritus principalis”? Does the Holy Ghost in Christ mediate between divine and human nature, as a “metaphysical glue”, so to say, between Christ the human and God the Son, thus ensuring the quality and inner structure of the Incarnation? Saint Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor, incidentally also a good friend of Saint Thomas Aquinas, expressly rejects this (Opera omnia III distinctio 2, art. 3, q. 3). For then the Holy Ghost, and not the son,would have become man. He also rejects the idea that the Son possesses human nature by means of a cast-in grace which can be assigned, appropriated or attributed to the Holy Ghost. For, he says, such a condition (habitus) is something created and as such could have no infinite effect. But the Incarnation of the Son is an infinite effect (Opera omnia III distinctio 2, art. 3, q. 2). It is only in a congruent sense that he wants to allow a mediation of the Holy Ghost. What does congruent mean? Congruent here means a necessary concomitant circumstance, but which has no causal relation to the Incarnation. In this sense one can say that Christ is (also) anointed with the Holy Spirit, though the substantial anointing of Christ’s humanity is its Personal Unity with the Eternal Son being assumed by the Latter. So this anointing of Christ’s humanity “with” the Holy Ghost is merely a consequence, not a cause, of his priesthood; we are dealing here with a use of language that is essentially improper but which can be, however, acceptable within certain limits.

The Holy Ghost is also not a formal cause of the priestly character

Conversely, the indestructible priestly character (the seal of priestly ordination) of the apostles and their successors, the bishops, can not be ascribed to the Holy Ghost formally, for the priestly character is Christ Himself. This is what Saint Thomas describes in his Summa theologica (III q. 63 a.2, 3 and 5). By asserting that the character is “ipse Christus”, that is, “Christ Himself”, of course, he does not mean a factual identity, but again that formal cause of metaphysical shape and appearance of which we are speaking here. The priesthood of the apostles is thus modeled upon that of the Redeemer, which is immediately obvious. Since the priesthood of the apostles through the priestly seal is an accident (that is, a nonessential quality) attached to the soul, but Jesus Christ is by nature or essentially priest by what, quite simply, he is: the Son of God Incarnate! There is the same difference between Christ’s and the Apostles’ Priesthood as there is between substance and accident.

The consequence of the new form of episcopal consecration: The denial of the Son‘s Divine Nature and Personality

What if, as the new form of episcopal consecration asserts, one sees the formal cause for Christ’s and the apostles’ priesthood as one and the same ? One may conclude: The priesthood of Jesus would then be on the same level as that of the apostles, which in turn would mean that Christ would only be deified by the ominous “spiritus principalis”! But such a ‘Jesus’ is not our Christ of revelation, and we do not know such a person as Catholics worthy of the name! So the new form preaches a different gospel (‘And may the one who does so be anathema!’, Gal. 1.8) and humbles the priesthood of the New Covenant to the level of that of the Old Testament. Exactly analogous to those elders established by Moses when God instructed the prophet to place seventy men to govern the people God wanted to take from the “spirit” that he had already given to Moses to give to these men (Num. 11.16 ff.). It was just the passing on of a charisma.

The new form is based on the newfangled spirit christology

Who are the people preaching this new “gospel”, and what is the name of this pseudo-theological tendency? It is called Spirit Christology, in contrast to the revealed Logos Christology: “and the Word became flesh” (John 1, 14)! Spirit Christology was and is more or less taught by most of the post-Conciliar crowd (e.g. Hans-Urs von Balthasar or the Jesuit Piet Schoonenberg, not to mention the editor of the new rite of episcopal consecration himself, Joseph Lécuyer).

Fr. Joseph Lécuyer , as a missionary of the Holy Ghost Fathers, was subordinate to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lécuyer’s research raised the eye-brows of his religious superiors in the Nineteen-Fifties, so Archbishop Lefebvre sent a file setting out a suspicion of heresy to the Holy Office. Pius XII died before the matter could be concluded, and everything changed. After the retirement of Archbishop Lefebvre, Lécuyer replaced him as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers! This important position, in turn, gave him a way into the Consilium for the Implementation of Constitution on the Liturgy under Archbishop Annibale Bugnini during the pontificate of Paul VI. Lécuyer was especially responsible for the creation of the new rite of consecration of bishops .

There are many more ‘Spirit Christologists’. One of them is Leonardo Boff, who was by no means concerned only with the “liberation theology”, a Communist version of a faked Christendom. Since the Spirit Christology is oriented pan-religiously, it has found significant representatives even among Protestants, such as Prof. Jürgen Moltmann, whom Joseph Ratzinger knows very well, or the late Protestant-Reformed Prof. Hans-Joachim Kraus , who saw the Spirit Christology as a requirement for dialogue with Judaism: Jesus Christ should be explainable in a purely Old Testament perspective! The whole movement of Taizé belongs to this environment, in particular Max Thurian. The Lima liturgy written by him is steeped in Spirit Christology. In several passages it appears that Jesus of Nazareth was raised to Messianic dignity by John the Baptist only at the baptism in the River Jordan, when the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of the dove. As a further important representative let us not forget the Charismatic Movement. It would take too much to list them all, but in English, the entries on Google Books about ‘spirit christology’ are legion.

Spirit Christology presents the Redeemer as a human being who becomes Christ only through the “gift of the Spirit”. This corresponds to the new rite of episcopal consecration. In addition, not only is the divinity of Christ denied, but another heresy concerning the Holy Trinity is immediately implied, for the new form also denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. For mainstream Spirit Christology clearly states that the ‘spirit’ (who or which is strangely equated with the attribute of the divine essence of ‘force’ as if a divine attribute were the same as one – and only one – of the three divine persons) proceeds from the Father into the Son, as if the latter was in need of this gift, so that he could pass it on to the apostles. That this is meant not only in a temporal sense (i.e. in the context of the external mission of the Son into the world), but also in the intrinsic sense with regard to the Holy Trinity, becomes evident from the official catechisms of the Vatican II Sect.

Spirit Christology can also be found in the new worldwide Catechism of the Conciliar Sect

In No. 47 of the Compendium (the official digest) of the Catechism of the “Catholic” Church (the new worldwide catechism of the 1990’s), the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is reinterpreted in such a way as to clearly state that the Holy Ghost (renamed the Holy Spirit) allegedly proceeds from the Father into the Son, which is completely heretical. This contradicts the Creed of the Eleventh Council of Toledo [Dz. 277], which took over a formulation dating back to St. Augustine [de Trin. 15.26.47; in Ioh. Tract. 99 n. 9]: “The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father into Son.”

But this is not enough, because this No.°47 is based on the reversal of the above quotation of Saint Augustine in §264 of the catechism itself, especially in the French and Dutch editions, which can also be consulted on the website of the Vatican. Although referring to the said quotation of Augustine, it turns it into its exact opposite. This twisting appeared in the Compendium in many languages, including the German and English versions. Why is it so important that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son too? Quite apart from the fact that this is the revealed truth, if the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Father and the Son), the Son would not be sacred in the true sense of His sanctity, and so would need a gift of the Holy Spirit to complete his holiness (which He would otherwise lack), so this gift would be added to his personal existence. Thus the Son would not be perfect and, therefore, he would not be not God. And he could not be eternal either.

The same catechism expresses again and again, as if on a crusade, Spirit Christology and so does it in other paragraphs, especially where statements about the anointing of Christ with the Holy Spirit (which we by now know to be congruent only) are introduced in such a way as to make of the Holy Ghost the formal cause of the Christ’s Holiness. In truth, however, Christ’s holiness consists in the ‘grace of unity (gratia unionis)’, that is to say in that unity of the two natures in the Person of God the Son bestowed on his assumed humanity at the very moment of the Incarnation. This is found in all dogmatic handbooks used until the Second Vatican Council inthe formation of priests.

We cite this new catechism to make it clear that this heresy denying the Redeemer’s Divinity in the new form of episcopal consecration did not come about by accident, or asan unfortunate coincidence, but finds itself embedded in a widely-held heresy called Spirit Christology! So it’s all of a piece, coherent and therefore intentional. Let’s summarize: the new rite of consecration of bishops and the new catechism go together like pitch and sulphur. We also have a multilingual edition of the Gospel from Italy,with an imprimatur, from the 70’, which was published by an Italian supposedly Catholic missionary society in order to be distributed in hotels of places of pilgrimage such as Lourdes. Here, too, in the commentaries on the baptism of Christ in the River Jordan by St. John, there are very clear explanations which affirm that only at the moment of baptism did Jesus of Nazareth receive the messianic “enlightenment” of being the Redeemer. This heresy is well-known and long-since condemned, because even outlandish Gnostics taught it in the early days of the Church. Many years ago, Johannes Rothkranz comprehensively described the abyss of this perversion in his book “Die Kardinalfehler des Hans-Urs von Balthasar”. That Jesus of Nazareth ostensibly had his “consecrator” in John the Baptist has always been the doctrine of the so-called ‘Saint-John-Freemasonry’.

Who or what is the spiritus principalis?

In the Greek versions of the liturgical sources of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council – which by the way were almost without exception of pseudo-apostolic origin – the expression in question is reproduced as ‘hegemonikon pneuma’. This ‘hegemonikon pneuma’, however, comes from the philosophy of Stoics which was quite pantheistic. The ‘hegemonikon pneuma’ was the omnipotent, cosmic spirit inherent in the world, the power of self-organization of matter. Through the evolution of the universe, this spirit, according to the teachings of the Stoics, creates a living expression of itself. So he or it is a kind of soul of the universe. Modern, contemporary Panpsychism draws on this idea as a means of overcoming the the alleged opposition between mind and matter. The Jesuit and heretic Teilhard de Chardin was very close to these ideas. Progress, ideological as well as technical, is thus the manifestation par excellence lighthouse of the, ‘spiritus principalis’.

Since in antiquity the Stoics, in contrast to neo-Platonism, made a quite sober impression, many Christian thinkers were influenced by it until the middle of the third Christian century, and some, unfortunately, were more than favourable to it. Nowadays the Conciliar Sect tries to impose the stamp of the ‘hegemonikon pneuma’ on the Holy Spirit. This “pneuma” is then no longer the true Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Divine Father and the Divine Son, but a once blind and unformed power, which was given to the Son by the Father, so that the former might be up to his task in the world.

The sources of Spirit Christology

Originally, the following idea was behind the historical source (“Traditio apostolica”), which gave the model for the new form of episcopal consecration: the ‘spiritus principalis’ designated the allegedly originally not yet uttered Word of God (logos endiathetos) which only according to the idea was embedded in the God’s mind and not a person at all; this word, which has not yet been uttered, was supposed to become the openly revealed word (logos prophorikos) only and exclusively in the outward mission in the man Jesus of Nazareth. This is of course a complete nonsense! As if the Eternal Word had not previously been God the Son as a Person and could only have been so in the temporal mission!

From the beginning there have been false teachers who not only let their speculations (which would even have occurred to many a saint at the time, unfortunately) get out of hand, but who also – and this is crucial – incorporated their deviant philosophy into liturgical rites so that these would reflect the confused ideas of such teachers about the universe. Such authors thus built themselves a spiritual and liturgical monument pretending to present the conjectures they had written on as “traditional”safe” teaching of the apostles, whose “originals” had just been handed down to them. Thus, most of these “sources” emerged, and more than one and a half millennia later were “discovered” by the liturgical movement. These include several variants of the so-called “Traditio Apostolica”, the “Testament of the Lord”, the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostels”, but also the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions”. The pseudo-Clementine letters had great influence, too. Back then, in the second and third centuries, when heretics were shown that their doctrine was not that of the apostles and their successors, they simply invented the necessary documents to make their heresies appear credible.

The Synod in the Lateran under the Pope St. Martin I.

A synod in the Lateran under Pope St. Martin I condemned all attempts to introduce such documents into any discussions, at all times and in all places . This happened decades before a further synod without papal approval in the “Trullo”, the domed palace of the emperor in Constantinople, took place which almost declared the eighth book of pseudo-apostolic constitutions to be authentic.

Eventually the ‘Trullanum’ contented itself with the “apostolic canons“ (as apocryphal as the constitutions themselves), which were appended to the said eighth book, but the condemnation by the Roman Synod in the Lateran some decades before was purposely so general that it condemned all these documents from the outset [Lateran Synod 649, Denz. 274].

In particular, the Lateran Synod under Pope St. Martin I, insisted on exposing and excluding those who under the outward appearance of piety, attempted to displace the five immovable cornerstones of the Church (which at the time were the five ecumenical councils) with allegedly unrecognized documents, never heard arguments, books, acts of debates, false testimonies, invented synods and – here is the crucial point – with invalid ordination rites (ordinationes vacuas), which had no canonical recognition, and who therefore came to destroy the foundations, which the Holy Fathers had laid down.

Pope St. Martin I paid for his steadfastness with martyrdom; his successor at the time of the Council in Trullo almost met the same fate. Pope St. Martin was arrested by the Byzantine emperor and sentenced to death. After being severely scourged, he was spared capital punishment but, due to the abuse that he suffered at the time of his abduction, he died in exile in Chersonese, now Crimea. The Church honours him as a martyr and celebrates his feast on November 12th. The Conciliar Sect abolished his feast and moved its optional commemoration to April 13th, in close proximity to its commemoration in the Byzantine calendar (April 14th). The pontifical of Paul VI is thus stained with the blood of a martyred pope.

Already the Council of Ephesus condemned what is today called Spirit Christology

Even the assertion that Jesus Christ needed a different and alien power for his divine miraculous might, and that because of this the “spirit” was given from outside , and thus that the Redeemer did not work in his own Spirit, has long since been condemned. Against Nestorius, the Holy Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria formulated this condemnation at the Council of Ephesus [can. 9, Denz. 121]. This Council, which above all defended the title of honor of Our Lady as Mother of God, also defended the Filioque, that is the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. This means that Paul VI’s new form of episcopal consecration is subject to the said condemnation. Does not the new form say that the power of the Lord was granted to Him by an outside source?

The oldest confirmation of the dogma of Filioque dates back to Pope Damasus

The oldest affirmation of the Filioque is to be found in a decree of Pope St. Damasus on the occasion of a Roman Synod in the year 382: “The Holy Ghost is not the Spirit of the Father only or of the Son only, but the Spirit of the Father and the Son”. If he is the Spirit of both, then the Holy Ghost must also proceed from the Son, so the former is not given to the latter as a gift! Do not let anyone persuade you otherwise. The Conciliar Sect will try to make you believe that ‘gift’ is one of the names of the Holy Ghost. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, he is so named because he is given to the faithful, not because he is given to the Son.

The lies of the liturgical reformers

Spirit Christology wants to make it as if the Lord had been in need of being sanctified by an outward principle, which was supposed to establish his priesthood. That’s a big lie!

Another lie was told when, on the occasion of the introduction of the new Episcopal consecration, it was officially claimed that Western Syriacs and the Copts used much of this rite. The Western Syriac rite in question is not a bishop’s consecration, but the liturgy of the enthronement of the newly- elected patriarch who is already a bishop. It is therefore no sacrament at all! In addition, Lécuyer used false translations. In the Latin texts of his sources, for example, at one point the female relative pronoun ‘quam’ was replaced by a male ‘quem’, so that a false reference inside the phrase was made. The purpose was to give the impression that Christ must first be given the ‘spiritus principalis’, which is not stated in the original text.

Another allegedly conclusive text in the documents of the reformers turned out not to be the consecration prayer for a Maronite bishop but a prayer for the anointing of the head. So this part is not sacramental neither. But as far as the Coptic rite is concerned, the term “hegemonikon pneuma” is used in such a way that no dogma is violated. It is never said there that the Son first has to receive the Spirit that he would otherwise lack. Besides, the sentence with the term ‘hegemonic pneuma’ in question is not the form of consecration either. Even in the Coptic ordination of an abbot this expression “hegemonikon pneuma” occurs, with the laying on of hands, but it is quite clear that an ordination of an abbot is not a sacrament.

Pantheistic sense of the expression spiritus principalis

In Sacred Scripture we encounter the expression ‘spiritus principalis’ only once, in Psalm 50. According to the commentary on the Psalms of St. Robert Bellarmine here David asks God for the special charisma of his royal dignity. The king was not a priest ! The Conciliar Sect makes a big thing of the expression ‘hegemonikon pneuma’ because it itself proclaims its pantheistic application. When John Paul II mixed manioc flour in a ‘sacred grove’ of animists, together with African witch doctors, in Togo during a ceremony of pagan nature worship, and poured it on the earth as part of a fertility ritual, that was not a liberal avuncular gesture on his part. He was deeply convinced that the ‘hegemonikon pneuma’, the cosmic spirit, was also active in the rites of these diabolical magicians. It was no joke for him to let the Indians pass him the peace pipe. John Paul II was no less convinced of the presence of Wakan Tanka than were the Lakota Indians themselves who handed him an eagle feather. For these pagans know no difference between God and the world. For them, the world is the body of the Creator. The fabrication of the new rites of the ‘Conciliar Church’ and their practical use are therefore to be understood as the theurgical-magical connection with the omnipresent, the cosmic spirit’, which also manifests itself in these pagan religions or, to put it better, that has always worked and is still working. The pseudochristi [false christs] predicted by the Redeemer in Mk. 13.22 are not just pseudo-redeemers and deceivers; they are the false prophets with the false anointing of the ‘hegemonic pneuma’. This false anointing is also the main subject of their proclamation: “Look, I am a Christ like Christ Jesus, and I received the anointing that he received!” And that is exactly what Spirit Christology is based on!

After all that has just been said, the faithful Catholic must keep away from all the invalidly administered sacraments of the Conciliar Sect which are counterfeits, but also from all equally vain simulations of traditional rites, if the minister is not a validly ordained priest. For example, let us think of the Society of Saint Peter or the Institute of “Christ Eternal King and High Priest”. One must also keep in mind the eschatological dimension of such a collapse of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The devil leaves no stone unturned to destroy Holy Mass, or at least to make its celebration impossible, which can only succeed at the end of time. Let’s be awake to the signs of the times!


Stopka, Thilo Alexander: „Geist-Christologie und das Pontifikale Pauls VI. – Der unheimliche Einfluß einer Modetheologie auf die Bischofsweihen der sogenannten Konzilskirche“. Editions Saint-Remi, Cadillac 2017. Printed on demand.

Stopka, Thilo Alexander: „Die Frage der Gültigkeit der Priester- und Bischofsweihen nach dem Ritus Pauls VI.“ – Editions Saint-Remi, Cadillac 2007. Printed on demand.

Rothkranz, Johannes: „Die dreifache Ungültigkeit der neuen Bischofsweihe“. – Pro Fide Catholica, Verlag Anton Schmid (o. J.).

And for those who have a good command of French language:

Website ‚rore-sanctifica.org‘;this page evaluates all sources of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy under Annibale Bugnini, which are kept in the German Liturgical Institute (Deutsches Liturgisches Institut) in Treves.

Menke, Karl-Heinz: „Das heterogene Phänomen der Geist-Christologie“, (an essay, published to commemorate the 80th birthday of Cardinal Walter Kasper: „Mein Herr und mein Gott – Christus bekennen und verkünden“, published by George Augustin, Klaus Krämer, Markus Schulze, Freiburg – Basel – Wien 2013).


3 reacties

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te bestrijden. Ontdek hoe de data van je reactie verwerkt wordt.