On the Validity of the New Episcopal Rites

Refuting Anthony Cekada

Introduction

Months ago I penned a refutation to two of Anthony Cekada’s attacks on the validity of the Episcopal Ordinations. Here, I wish to provide a more condensed and accurate version of that article. Looking back, I don’t think I did as well as I could have, and here I want to do a more through-going response to Cekada’s articles. I also want to do it in light of my recent discussion on Anglican orders. First, let’s address the basic principles which are needed for a valid ordination.

According to Fr. Cekada, two things are essential for the validity of the sacrament.

Matter: some thing or action your senses can perceive (pouring water, bread, and wine, etc.)

Form: the words recited that actually produce the sacramental effect (“I baptize you…” “This is My body…,” etc.)[1]

Now, there is also the validity of intent and the requirements of a proper minister, but those can be set to the side for now. Fr. Cekada’s argument against the validity of the new rite is that there is an improper form that does not signify the power given to the Bishop at ordination. Pope Pius XII addresses what every for requires

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 Spirit — and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense [2].

The words in any form of the rite of consecration require the following three things, they need to,

• Signify univocally the power of the order of Bishop.
• Signify univocally the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
• Be accepted by the Church in signifying in their respective senses

The third element needs to be emphasized because of the fact Cekada omits this element

Note the two elements that it must univocally (i.e., unambiguously) express: the specific order being conferred (diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost [3].

The Weakest Argument?

This brings us to the refutation of his objection provided in section X of his article. He writes the following strawman argument,

Even if the essential sacramental form did not univocally signify one of the sacramental effects (the power of the Order of the episcopacy), approval by Pope Paul VI would nevertheless guarantee that the form was valid.

He goes on to say,

This is the last and weakest argument for validity, not only because it assumes that authoritative declarations in the Church need no coherent theological justification, but also because it wrongly attributes to the pope a power he does not possess. In the beginning of Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, reiterating the teaching of the Council of Trent, states: “the Church has no power over ‘the substance of the Sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs [5].

The objection is not about the Pope’s authority to declare a deficient set of words valid but to give a set of words a univocal signification in a sense which is “accepted and used by the Church”. Since he is the head of the Church, such an ability would not be beyond him.

While it is true the Pope has no power over the substance of the sacraments, this does not mean he cannot provide new words that signify the sacrament, as well as provide those words a sense to be understood by the whole Church. Throughout Church history, there have been various ordination rites, but they would have all contain the same essential traits Pope Pius XII listed. Historically, there are two types of forms of sacraments. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia,

Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders [6].

The article goes on to say,

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. ii) declared that the Church had not the power to change the “substance” of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter the substance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely the matter and form in so far as they had not been determined by Christ. This theory (which is not modern) had been adopted by theologians: by it we can solve historical difficulties relating, principally, to Confirmation and Holy Orders [7].

Since Christ did not give a specific matter or form for ordination, this is left in the hands of the Church herself to change. Cekada, to avoid this obvious distinction, trading on the ignorance of his readers, goes on to provide citations relating to sacraments in species and not in genere. Cekada cites Henricus Merkelbach, but if anyone looks at the footnotes, he cites two different parts of his Summa Theologiae Moralis III. Merkelback writes,

As regards Holy Orders, “The Church possesses no power over the meaning of the form, because it pertains to the substance of the sacrament instituted by Christ.” [8].

However, this is where the quoting ends, if you go onto the next part, we read the following,

but the Church is able to set the words which express this sense/meaning, yea rather, sometimes it must/ought to do so. Like the form of the sacrament, therefore, the words which determine the application of the matter must be considered, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified, ‘and these just as they are received and used by the Church’ [this is the above quote from Pius XII].” [9].

Cekada goes onto write (citing Merkelback),

Christ Himself prescribed that for Holy Orders the Church use signs and words “capable of expressing… the power of Order.” [10].

But Merkelback further elaborates

But the Church has designated diverse/different signs for diverse/different times and places. And thus is explained the diversity of matter and form in the valid ordinations of the Latin and Greek Church [11].

He confirms that the Church can designate its own signs which signify the powers of the episcopate, or the office itself, as they are received and used by the Church. Remember this as we go to Cekada’s objections.

The New Episcopal Form

“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 he gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name” [12].

The Holy Spirit is represented by “the governing Spirit” and “that power…he gave to the holy Apostles” will signify the order of Bishops. Going back to our last point, even if there are multiple readings Cekada (or any other critic) can offer, it is the sense in which the Church accepts these terms which we are concerned with. According to Saint Pope Paul VI, writing authoritatively in the same encyclical pronouncing the change of the forms, and representing the Church, writes,

In the revision of the rites of Sacred Ordination, however, in addition to the general principles by which the whole reform of the Liturgy ought to be governed, according to the prescriptions of the Second Vatican Council, attention should be paid especially to that wonderful doctrine on the nature and effects of the Sacrament of Orders which was proclaimed by the same Council in the Constitution on the Church [i.e. Lumen Gentium] [13].

This is the sense in which we have to accept and understand the meaning of the form of the new episcopal ordination.

Cekada points out that there is a supposed major issue with this form of the rite. While the governing Spirit does convey the grace of the Holy Spirit [14], there is no — or at the very least there is a present ambiguous — reference to the power of the episcopacy. The best line of argument against the argument of Rev. Cekada was by one of his interlocutors, Fr. Pierre-Marie OP. But there were three issues,

(1) It was not properly formed.

(2) It lacks any grounding from the developments found in Lumen Gentium, a council whose purpose was to better define what constituted the Order of Bishop and The Church.

(3) Mixes in jurisdiction with the powers of the order.

According to Rev. Cekada,

Fr. Pierre-Marie claims that the phrase in the Paul VI form that mentions the “power given to the Apostles to establish churches… necessarily implies that of ordaining priests.” False, for at least two reasons:

(a) The Apostles founded churches only because they enjoyed an extraordinary jurisdiction to do so. The theologian Dorsch says specifically that this power is not communicated to bishops: “not all those functions proper to the apostles are also proper to bishops — for example, to establish new churches.”

(b) To establish “churches” (dioceses, in modern terminology) is an exercise of the power of jurisdiction, not one of orders, such as ordaining priests. This jurisdictional power is proper to the Roman Pontiff alone [14].

Elsewhere, Rev. Cekada gives another response toward Br. Ansgar OSB that applies equally here. However, the issue is that he uses the form of a sacrament we utilize in specie (baptism) as his example, and not a form given in genere (ordination). In fact, words like “Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry” [15] found in the old-rite is also implicit of the full powers of the episcopate, since it implies the bishop-elect is being given the bishop’s powers through attaining the fullness of the priestly ministry, rather than enumerating them.

Specifically, Br. Ansgar cites no authority for the notion that a sacramental form that signifies “implicitly” is sufficient to confer a sacrament validly. Indeed, traditional sacramental theology teaches the opposite. If someone who administers baptism says, “I baptize you in the name of God,” his words imply the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but the form is considered invalid [16].

But returning to the issue with the way Fr. Pierre-Marie formulated the argument is that it takes certain elements of the new rite out of context and imposes his own, but they just end up becoming the jurisdiction (elements I will address later).

Power of Order, Power of Jurisdiction, and Sacred Functions.

For the sake of providing background information, we need to introduce a distinction between the bishop’s power of jurisdiction and his power of orders. The power of jurisdiction is the right to rule and the power of the order is the power to distribute grace [17]. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia,

With regard to the episcopate the Council of Trent defines that bishops belong to the divinely instituted hierarchy, that they are superior to priests, and that they have the power of confirming and ordaining which is proper to them (Sess. XXIII, c. iv, can. 6, 7). The superiority of bishops is abundantly attested in Tradition, and we have seen above that the distinction between priests and bishops is of Apostolic origin. Most of the older scholastics were of opinion that the episcopate is not a sacrament; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e.g., Billot, “De sacramentis”, II), though the majority of theologians hold it is certain that a bishop’s ordination is a sacrament.[18]

This will be an important fact for later.

Returning to the Form of Ordination

Aside from Rev. Cekada’s two rebuttals to Fr. Marie-Pierre, there is also a third point. The reading goes against the plain words, we use “the” — as in the definite article — not ‘a’ church, not churches, but the Church. Secondly, ‘Church’ (and ‘Ecclesium’ in the Latin)[19] is capitalized, referring to a proper noun. Thus, the Church does not consist of localities of smaller parishes, but something else.

To read them, we must look at the council which provided the sense of these words through Lumen Gentium. According to this constitution on the Church, the entity consists of,

those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God [20].

The Apostles were not founding jurisdictions, but they were founding the people of God. Now, this in itself is not enough to signify any power unique to the order of the bishop. But that is not the full sentence. The Apostles not only founded the people of God, but they are doing it in a certain way. The text continues, “in every place AS YOUR SANCTUARY unto the glory and unending praise of your name”. The part of a church containing the altar is the sanctuary[21], the Church is God’s sanctuary — as also taught by The Second Vatican Council — in addition to the Body of the Lord. The Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit[22]. This includes all her visible elements.

So, how does this signify the power of the order? Well, the first thing to note is that Lumen Gentium teaches here,

Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed… Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.[23].

And here,

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head[24].

And again, in the appendix,

A person becomes a member of the College [of the apostle’s] by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions.[25].

The council affirms that the bishops not only have their own ministry and order but that it is sacramental because it has its own ontological character. We are told,

Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.[26]

Unlike a priest, the bishop has the indelible mark of the Apostles. He, like his predecessors, sets up the sanctuary, which is the people of God, in perpetuity — unto the unending praise of his name — since he has the fullness of the Apostle’s priestly powers, which can be passed-on just like his power to ordain. However, as Rev. Cekada reminds us, the Apostles did not hand over their extra-ordinary judicial power. If that is true, how do we know which power from the Apostles is God being asked for? Would not the fact that the Church is established in all places signify the power of jurisdiction?

This brings us to the next point, what does it mean when the Apostles had founded the People of God as his sanctuary? Aside from being the place where sacrifices are made, the sanctuary is also a mark of the Church taking on visibility in her daily sacrificial functions.

Sanctuarium, taken in another sense, also means and is translated as “temple” in other versions of the text. Both these places establish sacrifice. In either translation, we are taking the People of God, and turning them into something visible to the world, in the Old Testament it was the Nation of Israel, now it continues in the Catholic Church, which Lumen Gentium calls “the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit” [27].

There is no better example of this action of unity in the Vatican II documents than in Lumen Gentium where we read the following infamous paragraph,

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.[28].

When we get to the reference of “this Church” as a society, we seem to be missing one important element, it is organized through the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him; that it subsists as the Catholic Church. It is not that there is the visible Catholic Church and the greater church outside, but the People of God require the Catholic Church to exist.

As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said,

The concept expressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsist”. “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject [29].

In the same way, the Nation of Israel started with Abraham and his family and subsisted his descendants, so does the Church. However, once the people get bigger, the Nation develops institutions like laws, religion, and traditions whereby the family of Abraham subsists. Just compare the Book of Judges with any portion of the Books of the Kings, there was institutional development that allowed the Jews to live better lives when the Kings (the faithful ones) ruled over them. Likewise, the college of Apostles and the successor of Peter govern over the society, giving them existence in an organized and governmental fashion.

Also, notice this need not entail your Fr. Karl Rahner SJ theology of the secret Christian either. The only thing the clause commits us to is the “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure”, but so what? Heretics can baptize (and sanctify) infants and teach many elements of Truths. I can affirm these truths within a hermeneutic of continuity. In fact, sacraments like baptism implemented by God impel all to Catholic unity because this is how we make people Christians, whose purpose is to obey the dictates of the Church in virtue of that baptism.

Founding the People of God as a visible entity, the Temple of the Holy Ghost, the Sanctuary to make a sacrifice to God, is done through the power of the Apostles, passed on to the Bishops who exercise their power in all times and places. It is not done through jurisdiction, but in their sacred functions, specifically in their work as missionaries,

The individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church. But each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ’s institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church, and this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church.[30].

Bishops do not need to have the jurisdictional power to establish individual diocese or churches, as even Lumen Gentium tells us,

This collegial union is apparent also the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful. The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church. For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity [31].

Another important thing to note is the episcopate’s relationship in power to that of the papacy. According to the appendix,

the word “functions [munera]” is used deliberately instead of the word “powers [potestates],” because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority [32].

Renegade and schismatic bishops outside of the Papacy cannot bring about unity in the Church, they are Judas. They are like an adult who is baptized outside the Church, while their baptism is valid, they are reborn separated from the Church, and this adult cannot exercise their rights, such as to the Holy Eucharist. Likewise, schismatic bishops, despite also participating in the succession of the Apostles, have no right to a jurisdiction since they refuse to work in obedience to the papacy. Nor can they exercise the sacred functions.

They have also no right to teach in the manner befitting only a bishop who exercises his sacred functions through Peter. While the Apostles did have extra-ordinary jurisdiction, even that, we can say, is only presupposed (1) through the permission of Peter, (2) and is applied to churches, not The Church.

The Fullness of Ministry and the Apostles

Now that we established that the bishops gather the Church together through their sacred functions of solicitude (evangelizing) - not their jurisdictional power — that as an Order bishops exercise those powers through Peter’s successors to bring together the Church together as a temple to offer sacrifices through all times, this should tell us that in participating in apostolic succession all powers of the order are contained therein and without issue.

The last problem posited by Rev. Cekada is the issue that the powers of the order are implicit, whereas they need to be explicitly stated. I don’t think it is necessary, but granting it is, Lumen Gentium tells us explicitly,

A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered, and by which the Church continually lives and grows [33].

Hence, we have no reason to conclude that when the activities of the Apostles are not signified in bringing the Church together (since he already is a priest able to offer the sacrament), that power given to them was nothing else than the sacrament of the Order. If one is not willing to capitulate that the fullness of the Order is signified, I will be happy to quote Rev. Cekada, who, when challenged by Br. Ansgar about the ambiguity of “fullness of thy ministry” in the ordinal of the Old Rite, and says,

“The words which fully suffice for the power and the grace to be signified are found in the consecratory Preface, whose essential words are those in which the ‘fullness or totality’ of the sacerdotal ministry and the ‘raiment of all glory’ are expressed.”[34].

Here the meaning of the words which relate to the full power of the order is defined, likewise, Lumen Gentium also links the fullness of the episcopal sacrament in the act of uniting the Church.

Context, Context, and Context

Even the context from the ordinal itself raises the probability of this reading’s accuracy, that this is the sense in which the Church understands the words of the form. The fuller prayer, with all three consecrators putting their hands over the bishop, is as follows,

O God,the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort,

Who dwellest on high but regardest the humble,

Who knowest all things before they come to pass,

Thou hast established the plan of thy Church.

By Thy gracious word,

Thou hast chosen the descendants of Abraham to be Thy holy people from the beginning,

Thou hast established princes and priests,

and didst not leave Thy sanctuary without ministers to serve Thee,

Who, from the beginning of the world wast pleased to be glorified in these whom Thou hast chosen:

And now

pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from Thee, the governing Spirit,

Whom Thou gavest to Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ,

Whom He gave to the holy Apostles,

Who founded the Church in every place as Thy sanctuary, unto the glory and unceasing praise

of Thy name [35].

Notice the mirror here. In the first paragraph of the consecration we see the power of God in action, he takes the descendants of Abraham, makes them his holy people (the pre-messianic Church), establishes priests and princes, and does not leave sanctuaries without ministers. This is the power God exercises and the bishops ask to hand down to his chosen one, who then does the same. But notice the line establish princes and priests, both of which the bishop is (bishops are called princes of the church since prince, in more informal English, did not mean just royalty, but anyone undertaking a leadership role).

The Bishop is most naturally read as the minister in the sanctuary service (the place where sacrifice is offered). It, therefore, stands to reason that in establishing the Church using the power God did over Israel, to set up sanctuaries, the act of creating ministers is also mentioned explicitly and is thus a power of the order.

Conclusion

By being given the power of the Apostles (the first bishops), the bishop-elect is elevated to the apostolic college, and given all powers necessary to bind the Church together into the Temple of the Holy Spirit. They are capable of providing all the requirements for a temple, such as offering sacrifice according to their priestly ministry and appointing bishops and priests according to their episcopal powers. In doing this, they provide the apostolic college a continual existence and lead a unifying ministry in the Church.

Much like how being given the fullness of the priestly ministry implied the power of the episcopate in the old-rite, so too does the elevation to the apostolic college imply the power of the episcopate in the new-rite. There are no extra-jurisdictional or jurisdictional powers involved, but sacred functions which are given and can only be enacted by being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. To merely dismiss the Orders of the Catholic Church without first addressing the Second Vatican Council or the office of Saint Pope Paul VI, would be an instance of begging the question.

I hope that any issues with our rites of ordination can be dismissed as absolutely null and utterly void.

//Update//Jan. 3, 2021//Grammar//

As a clarification, when speaking about the grammar of the form, the phrase “who founded the Church in every place as Thy sanctuary, unto the glory and unceasing praise of Thy name” should be read as an adjective clause, modifying the noun (the Apostles). Its purpose, as argued above, was to provide a descriptor of the sacred functions which accompany the power of the Order of bishops in terms of their effect. The powers and sacred functions are co-extensive (you can’t have one without the other) and are shared among all the Apostles (and their episcopal successors); these are given to all with the power of the episcopate. Since these functions and the power of the order are co-extensive, they provide a univocal signification to the “power” referenced. Since no other power grants these functions, the power of the bishop is the only remaining conclusion.

Footnotes

[1] Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, page 2.

[2] Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order, 1947, paragraph 4.

[3] Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, page 2.

[4] Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, page 12.

[5] ibid.

[6] Kennedy, D. (1912). Sacraments. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

[7] ibid.

[8] Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, page 12.

[9]Merkelbach 3:720: verba autem hunc sensum exprimentia ecclesia stabilire potest, immo quandoque debet. Ut formam sacramenti igitur consideranda sunt verba applicationem materiae determinantia, quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales quaeque ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur.

[10] Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, page 12.

[11] Merkelbach 3:18: “ecclesia vero signa determinavit diversa pro diversis temporibus et locis, et sic explicatur diversitas materiae et formae in ordinationibus validis Ecclesiae latinae et gracae.”

[12] Pope Paul VI, New Rite for the Sacred Ordination, 1968,

[13] Ibid

[14] A. Cekada, Still Null and Still Void, page 3 “From the context, governing Spirit appears to mean, simply, the Holy Ghost. Spiritum is capitalized in the Latin original, indicating the Third Person of the Trinity, and the relative pronoun Quem (here meaning “whom”) is used, rather than quam (which would refer to another antecedent in the form, virtus, i.e., power)”.

[15] Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order, 1947, paragraph 4.

[16] Cekada, Still Null and Still Void, page 5.

[17] Ahaus, Hubert. “Holy Orders.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 27 Sept. 2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm>.

[18] ibid

[19] Pope Paul VI, New Rite for the Sacred Ordination, 1968,

[20] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Lumen Chapter 2, Paragraph 9

[21] Catholic Dictionary <https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36276>

[22] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Lumen Chapter 2, Paragraph 17

[23] Ibid, Paragraph 20

[24] ibid, Paragraph 20

[25] ‘Notifications’ Given by The Secretary-General Of The Council At The 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964, Paragraph 2

[26] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Lumen Chapter 3, paragraph 22

[27] Ibid, Paragraph 17

[28] Ibid, paragraph 9

[29] Answers to Main Objections Against Dominus Iesus Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

[30] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Lumen Chapter 3, paragraph 23

[31] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Paragraph 23

[32] Notifications’ Given by The Secretary-General Of The Council At The 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964, Paragraph 2

[33] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Paragraph 26

[34] A. Cekada, Still Null and Still Void, page 5

[35]Fr. Marie-Pierre OP, Table 3: Validity of new episcopal consecrations

Note

Credit to my friend (who will remain nameless) for the Latin translations.