[Please note: The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position of The Messenger, its contributing writers, or of the Traditional Anglican Communion. The author would ask the reader to keep in mind that this essay is the work of a Roman Catholic layman who writes without benefit of specialised theological knowledge or competency. Extensive end notes are provided so that, where applicable, sources may be consulted directly by the reader. All feedback is most welcome and will be acknowledged. Gratias vobis ago.]

© Joseph Oliveri

Men cannot be collected in any name of religion unless the bond of certain signs, as if of visible Sacraments, should unite them together.

St. Augustine

Contra Faustum, Lib. 19, c. 11

In an earlier essay1, we examined the Letter Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII in light of ecclesiastical developments of the twentieth century -- particularly in light of the emergence of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. Yet apart from historical context, there is the far more important matter of theology. Do the theological arguments that Leo brought to bear against the validity of Holy Orders in the Church of England still apply, mutatis mutandis, to the faith and practice of the Continuing Anglican Churches?

If there is to be serious dialogue between Continuing Anglicans and the Holy See, this very question will have to be addressed. "Any reappraisal of Anglican Holy Orders," notes the Rev. John Jay Hughes, "will have ultimately to face the theological issues in themselves, prescinding from the question of how they were treated seventy and more years ago."2

We might anticipate such dialogue here by briefly revisiting the main theological arguments found in Apostolicae Curae: first, there is held to have been a defectus formae, or defect of sacramental form, in the Edwardine Ordinal; second, we have the related concept of a vitiated nativa indoles ac spiritus or "native character and spirit" of that Ordinal; and finally, the defectus intentionis, or defect of ministerial intention.

The defectus intentionis argument, while perhaps the most controversial of the three, has demonstrably the least impact upon Anglican Catholics; therefore, we will only touch upon it briefly here. Moreover, as the argument from the nativa indoles ac spiritus is merely ancillary or supportive, we will return to that point after we have first examined the defectus formae which Pope Leo stated was "the essential point" of the controversy.3

The Question of Intention

By proper ministerial "Intention," the Roman Catholic Church means an actual (or at least virtual) intention "to do what the Church does" (facere quod facit ecclesia) when she confers or confects a given Sacrament. Note that a general intention to do what the Church does is all that is strictly required -- nothing more. A minister may deny the effects of a Sacrament; he may deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Our Lord; indeed, he may even own that the pope is the antichrist himself, and Rome a dunghill of heresy. In the final analysis, errors and misconceptions habitually held in the mind of the minister of a Sacrament are of no moment whatsoever. What matters is that intention held by the minister during the actual administration of a Sacrament -- and again, other things remaining the same, a general intention will suffice.

So what would constitute a defective ministerial intention? Let us first recognize some of the more common misconceptions. A defect in ministerial intention is not predetermined because the minister is a known heretic. Someone who administers or confers a Sacrament haphazardly is not de facto said to have had a defective ministerial intention. And (pace those who have recourse to Saepius Officio) a defective ministerial intention can neither be determined from, nor validated by what some theologians call the "external intention" of a given rite -- i.e., by the stated purpose of a rite or the Church's corporate intention.

Unless there are very serious and substantial reasons to conclude otherwise, the minister of a given Sacrament is presumed to have the requisite general intention of "doing what the Church does" (faciendi quod facit ecclesia), in obedience to Christ, when the Church confers or confects that Sacrament. In some cases, however, this intentio generalis is held simultaneously in the mind of the minister alongside a positive contrary intention -- e.g., to not ordain sacrificing priests -- and as the contrary intention is a positive act of the will, it would both override any generally held or virtual intention, as well as effectively negate a positive and proper ministerial intention.4

In Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII maintained that the Holy Orders of the Church of England were nullified due, in part, to a defect of ministerial intention; however, by this he did not mean a defect necessarily present in contemporary Anglican ordinations, but one which was manifest in the ordination of Matthew Parker, the source of episcopal lineage in the Church of England. By using the Edwardine Ordinal in that historical setting, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale and Hodgkin reliably manifested -- from Rome's point of view -- a positive contrary intention destructive of the Sacrament of Order, cancelling out their general intention to do what the Church does and thus invalidating Parker's consecration.

In order for Rome to determine that a defect of ministerial intention was present today in a given ordination, her theologians would have to assemble credible proofs that the ordaining Bishop positively intended to not ordain a sacrificing priest (in the Catholic sense). It would be difficult to imagine how such evidence would manifest itself, if we consider the fact that any ambiguities in the traditional Anglican Formularies must now be understood in light of both the Affirmation of St. Louis and the actual practice of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions themselves. In other words, an anti-sacerdotal intent can no longer be concluded from simple recourse to the Ordinal; in fact, where the 1662 rite has been elaborated with pre-Reformation ceremonial, the exact opposite conclusion should in all fairness be presumed.5

Of the faith and practice of the Traditional Anglican Communion, for example, little more need be said than the fact that each of its Churches vigorously maintains that the conferral of Holy Orders upon women is simply an ontological impossibility – the shallow theological reasoning of modernist bishops and General Conventions notwithstanding. This is perfectly in keeping with Catholic tradition, East and West. Virtually every ecclesial communion that denies the existence of a threefold, apostolic Ministry now has women among its clergy. Where the Ministry is not seen as a Sacrament, but only a position of authority required for probity and order, there could be no reason whatsoever to deny women access to such a ministry. Traditional Anglicans, on the other hand, have ever maintained -- in accordance with the Preface to the Ordinal -- that the apostolic Orders of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop are to be "continued, and reverently used and esteemed" in the Catholic sense. Within the cultural context of this age, the faithful upholding of a ministerial Priesthood restricted to males is testimony enough to a given Bishop’s proper intention facere quod facit ecclesia, "to do what the Church does," when the Church ordains Deacons and Priests and consecrates Bishops.

The Question of Form

When we speak of sacramental Form, we are dealing with sensible signs that both effect, and reflect, an interior reality. Or as Pope Leo says, citing a well known rule, "[T]he Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify."6 If the Matter of a given Sacrament is indeterminate -- e.g., anointing the forehead with the holy chrism, or imposing hands upon the head -- then we rely upon the Form, or prayers closely associated with the Matter and generally proximate to it within the rite, to determine the signification of the Matter.

Now, remember, we are not here concerned with Leo's determination in 1896 regarding the Anglican Ordinal so much as we are looking to apply his arguments to the present day. Specifically, we shall attempt to observe the same criteria in our own comparison of the Anglican Ordinal and Roman Pontifical of today. How do these two rites set out to "signify the grace which they effect"? We will get to this comparison momentarily; first, however, a key theological concept will need to be explained.

In sacramental theology there is a type of reckoning known as determinatio ex adiunctis. Let's take a moment to familiarise ourselves with this concept, because it will be a necessarily recurring theme in our comparison of the more salient parts of priestly ordination in the Ordinal and Pontifical. Literally, determinatio ex adiunctis simply means "determination from accessory circumstances," where circumstances are understood to mean other prayers or ritual actions that take place within that liturgical rite. In other words, determinatio ex adiunctis adds further signification to the sacramental form by linking, as it were, the various prayers and actions of a rite together as a moral unity. By extension, it has even been argued that determinatio ex adiunctis could also refer to "the connotation of the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age."7

But what does determinatio ex adiunctis have to do with our comparative study? The answer is twofold. In the Roman Pontifical, the sacramental form itself is somewhat vague -- and therefore, it is given further signification from the various other prayers and ceremonies of the rite as a whole. With regards to the Anglican Ordinal, there has been debate from the very beginning over which prayer exactly constitutes the form -- since some theologians believe the form should be precatory (i.e., in the form of a prayer), others believe it may be imperative (e.g., "Take thou the authority," etc.), and so forth. And so here again, whatever the form is understood to be, the other prayers and ceremonies of the rite should be understood as a moral unity that gives significance to the form.

When Pope Leo faulted the sacramental forms found in the Edwardine Ordinal -- forms which in and of themselves could be understood in a perfectly Catholic sense, but which were at the same time ambiguous -- he in effect employed determinatio ex adiunctis by considering the ambiguous forms in light of the other prayers of the rite, as well as the Ordinal's origins as a whole. As for the changes that were made to the Ordinal by the Fathers of the 1661 Savoy conference, Pope Leo refers to these only hypothetically in passing8, allowing that "even if" the insertion of for the office and work of a priest, etc., could have supplied the necessary Catholic signification to the formerly ambiguous forms, logically the measure would have by that time been too late. And at any rate, Leo concludes a little further on, "it was impossible that, in the course of time, [the Ordinal] would become sufficient, since no change had taken place" -- by which he must have meant that neither the other prayers and actions of the rite, nor even the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age, had changed. Such a change, of course, would have possibly resulted in a determinatio ex adiunctis argument in support of the Ordinal's objective sufficiency, rather than against it.

"No change had taken place." Would it be even remotely possible to use those words in any sober description of the current liturgical scene?

As if to underscore our point, let us now undertake a comparison of six important ceremonies in the Anglican Ordinal and the Roman Pontifical: (1.) the suffrage for ordinations, from the Litany; (2.) the Ordination Prayer, or Prex; (3.) the vesting with stole and chasuble; (4.) the anointing and hallowing of the hands; (5.) the "tradition" of the instruments; and (6.) the imposition of hands accompanied by the formula, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.

Three of these ceremonies – namely, the vesting, the anointing of the hands, and the "tradition" of the instruments – were restored (as optative)9 by the first Continuing Anglicans just over ten years after those same ceremonies were radically revised for the 1968 Roman Pontifical. What is significant about this restoration of pre-Reformation ceremonial is not the fact that it is recommended, while remaining optional, but the fact that these ceremonies are even permitted as an option at all. The ceremonies themselves do not belong to the essential matter of Ordination10; rather, they dramatically emphasize the sacerdotal character of the rite. They are adiuncta, accessory prayers and ritual actions – but they are prayers and actions that lend tremendous meaning to the visible signs of this Sacrament. As the Rev. Andrew Stahl reiterated in his Ceremonial at the Form and Manner of Ordering Priests According to the American Rite (1979): "The various traditional forms from the pontificals... are not necessary for any validity of ordination, but should be used whenever possible. They are extremely edifying to the ordinands and the people."11

Rather than simply examine the prayers from the current Roman Pontifical12, let us collate our study with the same prayers from the 1596 Pontifical as well. Although there was no official Roman Pontifical before the Reformation, the Pontifical that was promulgated by Pope Clement VIII remained virtually unchanged until 1968. The 1596 prayers will therefore serve as a valuable point of reference, since the corresponding prayers in the pre-Reformation English pontificals are nearly identical in all the essentials.13 (The 1596 Pontifical was of course the one familiar to Pope Leo XIII.)

We begin with a quick overview or plan of the three priestly ordination rites in question.14 For the sake of convenience, the rites are here broken down into closely associated prayers and actions (the numbering is simply there for reference later on).

1. The Pontificale Romanum (1596-1968)

1.1. Presentation of the Ordinands

1.2. Bishop's charge (first to the assembly, then to the Ordinands)

1.3. Litany of the Saints (suffrage for ordinations)

1.4. "First" imposition of hands in silence

1.5. "Second" imposition of hands

; Bidding and Collect

1.6. Preface for ordinations (Ordination prayer)

1.7. Rearrangement of the stole and vesting with the chasuble

1.8. Veni Creator

1.9. Anointing and hallowing of the hands

1.10. "Tradition" of the instruments (porrectio instrumentorum); Accipe potestatem ("Receive the power"), etc.

1.11. Mass is resumed

1.12. Communion of the newly-ordained

1.13. "Third" imposition of hands; Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ("Receive the Holy Ghost"), etc.

1.14. Promise of obedience

1.15. Pax and instruction

1.16. Blessing of the newly-ordained

1.17. Postcommunion Collect for ordinations

1.18. Dismissal and Pontifical Benediction

1.19. Final exhortation

1.20. Last Gospel

2. Anglican Ordinal

2.1. Presentation of the Ordinands

2.2. Bishop's charge (to the assembly)

2.3. Oath of conformity

2.4. Litany (suffrage for ordinations)

2.5. Pater Noster; the Introit; etc., through the Gloria

2.6. Collect of Ordination

2.7. Mass is resumed, through the Gospel

2.8. Bishop's charge (to the Ordinands); examination

2.9. Solemn prayer

2.10. Veni Creator

2.11. Ordination Prayer

2.12. Imposition of hands; "Receive the Holy Ghost," etc.

2.13. Rearrangement of the stole and vesting with the chasuble

2.14. Anointing and hallowing of the hands

2.15. "Tradition" of the instruments; "Receive the authority," etc.

2.16. "Tradition" of the Holy Bible

2.17. Credo

2.18. Mass is resumed, through the Communion

2.19. Postcommunion Collect for ordinations

2.20. Dismissal and Pontifical Benediction

3. The Revised Pontificale Romanum (1968)

3.1. Presentation of the Ordinands

3.2. Bishop's charge (first to the assembly, then to the Ordinands)

3.3. Examination of the candidates

3.4. Bidding prayer

3.5. Litany of the Saints (suffrage for ordinations)

3.6. Collect

3.7. Imposition of hands in silence

3.8. Ordination prayer

3.9. Vesting with stole and chasuble in silence

3.10. Anointing and hallowing of the hands

3.11. "Tradition" of the instruments; Accipe oblationem ("Receive the offering"), etc.

3.12. Pax

3.13. Mass is resumed, through the Communion

3.14. Postcommunion Collect for ordinations

3.15. Blessing of the newly-ordained

3.16. Dismissal and Pontifical Benediction

Suffrage for Ordinations

[ 1.3 ] The Pontificale Romanum (1596-1968)

During the Litany of the Saints, after a number of intercessions, the Bishop rises; and holding the crozier in his left hand he turns towards the prostrate ordinands and blesses them, saying:

That it may please Thee to bless + these elect;

The Choir and assembly respond:

We beseech Thee, hear us.


That it may please Thee to bless + and hallow + these elect;

Choir and assembly:

We beseech Thee, hear us.


That it may please Thee to bless +, hallow +, and consecrate + these elect;

Choir and assembly:

We beseech Thee, hear us.

The Bishop then kneels again as the Choir finishes the Litany.

In the 1596 Pontifical (as well as in the pre-Reformation pontificals in England) this suffrage was identical for each of the "Major" Orders (viz., Subdeacon, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop). No mention is made of the Order about to be conferred, nor is there a prayer for the infusion of grace; however, neither are necessary at this point since both are plainly found in other parts of the rite.

[ 2.4 ] The Anglican Ordinal

During the Litany, after a number of intercessions, the Bishop rises; and holding the crozier in his left hand he turns towards the prostrate ordinands and blesses them, saying:

That it may please Thee to bless + these Thy servants +, now to be admitted to the Order of Priests, and to pour Thy + grace upon them; that they may duly execute their Office to the edifying of Thy Church, and to the glory of Thy Holy Name;

The Choir and assembly respond:

We beseech Thee to hear us, good Lord.

Note that the Order of Priesthood is mentioned specifically (as it is likewise during the ordination of a Deacon and the consecration of a Bishop). The Bishop also asks God to pour His grace upon the elect -- in other words, God is asked to infuse the elect with sacramental grace.

Mgr. Pietro Gasparri, a member of the papal commission in 1896 who was also the professor of Canon Law at the Institute of Paris, believed that this suffrage could have sufficed as the sacramental form in the Anglican Ordinal15. He was not alone in this belief.

Historically, Roman Catholic critiques of this prayer are relatively sparse. Estcourt16 remarks that the term "’Admitted’ is a perfectly novel word, that came with the Lutheran doctrines," and that the words "sanctify" and "consecrate" are conspicuously absent.17 And E. C. Messenger calls attention to the term "execute," since the execution of a given office may imply jurisdiction though not necessarily a conferred power.18 Most criticism appears to center upon one of these points.

[ 3.5 ] The Revised P.R. (1968)

All remain kneeling for the Litany, during which the following suffrages are sung or chanted antiphonally by one or more vocalists ("Cantores incipiunt litanias," etc.) and the assembly.


That it may please Thee to bless these elect;

The assembly responds:

We beseech Thee, hear us.


That it may please Thee to bless and hallow these elect;


We beseech Thee, hear us.


That it may please Thee to bless, hallow, and consecrate these elect;


We beseech Thee, hear us.

Two things are noteworthy here. The first, most obvious change, is that the suffrages on behalf of the ordinands are chanted not by the Bishop, but by cantors or professional vocalists (the rubrics give absolutely no direction in this regard). The second change is naturally an extension of the first: the suppression of the episcopal blessings.

The Second Vatican Council had clearly mandated that there would be no innovations, undertaken as part of the approved liturgical reform, "unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 23). In the view of the Roman Catholic reformers, then, the Church genuinely and certainly required the above changes to the ordination suffrage.

It is singularly remarkable that the Bishop’s unique participation has been suppressed from the Litany suffrage in the Roman Pontifical. In Roman Catholic theology, blessings such as these are not considered empty signs but sacramentals (sacramentalia): "These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the Sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the Sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 60).19 Although sacramentals do not, of course, confer sanctifying grace ex opere operato, they are considered salutary and excellent helps to the spiritual life. St. Thomas, for example, believed that the episcopal blessing would effect pardon from venial sins for those who knelt before it and implored the mercy of God.20

Recalling now the concept of determinatio ex adiunctis, if one were to compare the suffrage from the revised Pontifical to the same prayer from the Anglican Ordinal, he would be hard put to find the Roman Catholic prayer superior as a determinative, visible sign. In fact, one might reasonably argue that the suffrage from the Pontifical has been impoverished of any visible signification; and without the episcopal blessings it furthermore denies the ordinands a sacramental most appropriate at the doorstep to the sacerdotium.21 The Anglican suffrage, on the other hand, names the specific Order to which the elect are about to be ordained; it implores a pouring forth of sacramental grace upon the ordinands; and (at least in the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions) it retains the traditional episcopal blessings.

Echoing the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Canon 1), Pope Leo XIII noted in Apostolicae Curae that the "grace and power" of the Holy Priesthood (sacerdotium) "is chiefly the power of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" in the Sacrifice of the Mass.22 Let the reader decide for himself which of the above prayers currently in use would be more appropriate in a rite that ought to signify this grace and power.

[We will resume our comparitive study in Part II with the Prex, or Ordination Prayer.]

End Notes


1. http://www.angelfire.com/nj/malleus/article.html

2. John Jay Hughes, Absolutely Null & Utterly Void (Corpus Books, 1968), p. 284. Fr. Hughes is believed to have been the first Anglican priest since the Reformation to have his ordination reiterated only sub conditione, or “conditionally,” upon his reconciliation with the Holy See in 1968.

3. Cf. Apostolicae Curae (hereafter AC) n. 23

4. One of the most thorough and readable explanations of the Roman Catholic position with regards to ministerial intention is Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention (Longmans, Green and Co., 1956), by Francis Clark, S.J. A response to Clark’s arguments can be found in the famous work by John Jay Hughes, Stewards of the Lord (London Sheed and Ward, 1970).

5. Even if the service were to employ the "alternate" form for the conferral of the Priesthood found in the (pre-1979) American BCP, the restored ceremonial would more than make up for any ambiguity, and would supply an unmistakeable sacerdotal character to the rite.

6. AC, n. 24

7. Francis Clark, S.J., quoted in Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech (Roman Catholic Books, 1993), p.123. The original statement appeared in Fr. Clark’s The Catholic Church and Anglican Orders (Catholic Truth Society, 1962), p.21.

8. AC, n. 26. This is, unfortunately, the famous paragraph where Leo completely misconstrues the historical motivation behind the elaborated 1662 forms. In this connexion, it is noteworthy that by the time AC was being composed, more than a few Roman Catholic theologians –- at least one Cardinal among them -– had already expressed the notion that the 1662 forms would have in all probability been sufficient from a Catholic point of view. See Paul F. Bradshaw, The Anglican Ordinal (SPCK, 1971), pp. 123-143.

9. Generally speaking, the sacramental forms of the 1662 Ordinal remain the "standard" throughout the Continuum (some jurisdictions use the Prayer Book of 1549 and the Ordinal of 1550); however, it is almost universally supplemented at least to some degree. This ought not scandalise any traditional Anglican when it is recalled that "some of the unrubrical, but not necessarily unauthorised, restorations or innovations of the Caroline divines became part of the directions of the book of 1661, e.g., the manual acts or the ceremonial of the offertory…" See Walter Frere’s revision of Proctor’s A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, (Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1965).

10. That there had been considerable debate over the porrectio instrumentorum – i.e., over whether this ceremony belonged to the essence of priestly ordination – cannot obviously be denied. Theological opinion among Roman Catholic theologians was varied; but until Pius XII authoritatively defined the Matter and Form of Holy Orders in Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947, there was a general consensus that an ordination that had taken place without the porrectio was bound to be reiterated sub conditione, or conditionally.

11. Rev. F. Andrew Stahl, B.D., L.Th., Ceremonial at the Form and Manner of Ordering Priests According to the American Rite, Introductory Notes, n. 8. See also the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, p. 152 of the TAN edition (1976); and Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Lib. IV, Art. II (“De Essentia Sacramenti Ordinis Dogmatice Considerata”), published by the Pontifical University of Salamanca in 1956.

12. The Roman Pontifical currently in force was compiled by what was officially known as the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia ("Committee for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy") -– a group of liturgical periti, or "experts," under the direction of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini -– and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968. In response to widespread criticism that the new rites were generally impoverished and ambiguous, the Pontifical was eventually revised more than twenty years later in 1989; however, as British historian Michael Davies has demonstrated, not one of the revisions in 1989 actually repaired the original deficiencies. See Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 75-90 and 206-231.

13. With one minor exception (which we will note a little further on), none of the differences between the Roman Pontifical of 1596 and the Pontificals of Lincoln, Exeter, Sarum, etc., relate to either the Matter or Form of the Sacrament of Order. For a detailed study of the pre-Reformation English rites, see William Maskell's Monumenta Ritualia (Pickering, 1846), J. H. Blunt’s The Annotated Book of Common Prayer (Rivingstons, 1888), or Proctor’s New History of the Book of Common Prayer.

14. The English translation of the prayers from the revised Pontificale Romanum are my own. Translations eminating from the International Commission on English in the Liturgy are seldom to be trusted as accurate, since ICEL is rather notoriously unfaithful to the Latin editio typica texts. Therefore, no ICEL translation will be used here.

15. Bradshaw, op. cit., pp. 135-6.

16. E. E. Estcourt, The Question of Anglican Ordinations Discussed (Burns and Oates, 1873), 212.

17. Ibid., p. 214

18. Ernest C. Messenger, The Reformation, the Mass, and the Priesthood (Longmans, Green and co., 1936), p.458 et passim

19. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1667-1679, and the article on sacramentals in the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm).

20. "The episcopal blessing, the aspersion of holy water, every sacramental unction, prayer in a dedicated church, and the like, effect the remission of venial sins, implicitly or explicitly" (Summa III, Q. lxxxvii, a. 3, ad 1um).

21. It is now generally recognised that Bugnini’s liturgical Consilium was in thrall to a particularly aggressive animus against what it viewed as Gallican or late-Medieval accretions –- such as the sign of the Cross, benedictions, and other so-called manual acts (from the Latin manus, meaning "hand"). Fr. Romano Tommasi relates the rather amusing (but sadly true) anecdote that, in the original draft of the Novus Ordo Missae, the Consilium had actually suppressed the sign of the Cross at the beginning of Mass, as well as the Orate Fratres ("Pray, brethren…"), because these were evidently ritual effluvia. Thankfully, however, both the sign and the prayer were restored by Paul VI -- because he happened to be fond of them. See The Latin Mass, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 26-28.

22. AC, n. 25