Post by Pacelli on Sept 13, 2018 10:44:06 GMT -5
I have urged Catholics to use due diligence in examining the orthodoxy and orders of eastern rite priests. From my personal experience, I have never run into any that had questionable ordination. From my experience, however, I do not go to the Syro-Malabar or the Ruthenian rites.
A gentleman has written me with some concerns that some bishops in these rites have orders that came from John Paul II. I looked into the two bishops, and one of them is certainly problematic, while I believe the other is safe. I will use this thread to document these bishops and any others with issues so Catholics will have a quick resource to find the answers they need. I will update this thread as needed as more bishops are uncovered with potential Conciliar contamination.
Fortunately, in the eastern rites, there is always a principal consecrator along with two co-consecrators, so even in cases where one or even two bishops are potentially invalid, one with certain validity will suffice. All of this presumes that the Catholic rite is used. If the Paul VI rite was used, even by validly consecrated bishops, there is a doubt, as the Catholic Church has yet to determine if this novel rite that is significantly different than the Catholic rite is valid.
Ruthenian Rite
Milan Šašik:He was consecrated a Bishop by John Paul II, and two other Latin rite bishops, both of whom would have been consecrated in the Paul VI rite, as they were consecrated long after the new Paul VI rite took effect. John Paul II was a bishop with valid holy orders, so the question in this case is whether Šašik was consecrated according to the Ruthenian rite. If he was, validity would be presumed as John Paul II, the principal consecrator, was an unquestionably valid bishop. The problem is that because Šašik was consecrated by three “Latin rite” bishops, it seems reasonable to question whether they used the Latin Rite (Paul VI rite). Unless evidence can be brought forward that the Ruthenian rite was used, I believe there are strong grounds to suspect that the Paul VI rite was used, therefore putting a serious question as to the validity of his episcopal orders.
Syro-Malabar Rite
Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath: The bishop in question +Adayanthrath, in the Syro-Malabar rite was not consecrated by John Paul, but rather it was his principal consecrator, Vithayathil, that was the principal.
I provisionally believe that Vithayathil was consecrated by John Paul using the Paul VI rite, but I do not believe that is the case with +Adayanthrath. One of Bishop +Adayanthrath’ co-consecrators was Bishop Thomas Chakiath, who has an unquestionably valid lineage. See here: catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bchakiath.html
I believe bishop Chakiath acting as co-consecrator was sufficient to be certain that the episcopal succession passes on to bishop Adayanthrath. Regarding Vithayathil, I would not trust his episcopal orders, and would be distrustful of the orders of any priests he ordained.
A gentleman has written me with some concerns that some bishops in these rites have orders that came from John Paul II. I looked into the two bishops, and one of them is certainly problematic, while I believe the other is safe. I will use this thread to document these bishops and any others with issues so Catholics will have a quick resource to find the answers they need. I will update this thread as needed as more bishops are uncovered with potential Conciliar contamination.
Fortunately, in the eastern rites, there is always a principal consecrator along with two co-consecrators, so even in cases where one or even two bishops are potentially invalid, one with certain validity will suffice. All of this presumes that the Catholic rite is used. If the Paul VI rite was used, even by validly consecrated bishops, there is a doubt, as the Catholic Church has yet to determine if this novel rite that is significantly different than the Catholic rite is valid.
Ruthenian Rite
Milan Šašik:He was consecrated a Bishop by John Paul II, and two other Latin rite bishops, both of whom would have been consecrated in the Paul VI rite, as they were consecrated long after the new Paul VI rite took effect. John Paul II was a bishop with valid holy orders, so the question in this case is whether Šašik was consecrated according to the Ruthenian rite. If he was, validity would be presumed as John Paul II, the principal consecrator, was an unquestionably valid bishop. The problem is that because Šašik was consecrated by three “Latin rite” bishops, it seems reasonable to question whether they used the Latin Rite (Paul VI rite). Unless evidence can be brought forward that the Ruthenian rite was used, I believe there are strong grounds to suspect that the Paul VI rite was used, therefore putting a serious question as to the validity of his episcopal orders.
Syro-Malabar Rite
Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath: The bishop in question +Adayanthrath, in the Syro-Malabar rite was not consecrated by John Paul, but rather it was his principal consecrator, Vithayathil, that was the principal.
I provisionally believe that Vithayathil was consecrated by John Paul using the Paul VI rite, but I do not believe that is the case with +Adayanthrath. One of Bishop +Adayanthrath’ co-consecrators was Bishop Thomas Chakiath, who has an unquestionably valid lineage. See here: catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bchakiath.html
I believe bishop Chakiath acting as co-consecrator was sufficient to be certain that the episcopal succession passes on to bishop Adayanthrath. Regarding Vithayathil, I would not trust his episcopal orders, and would be distrustful of the orders of any priests he ordained.