A Statement on the Documents Attributed to Hippolytus
Jun 20, 2023 7:19:32 GMT -5
wenceslav, Didymus, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Jun 20, 2023 7:19:32 GMT -5
The thought occurred to me that some may construe from what I have been writing about, and will be writing about, that the documents from "Hippolytus," The Apostolic Tradition, and the Canons of Hippolytus, may have no value. This is certainly not what I am arguing for. These documents have immense historical value in piecing together some of what happened in the early Church, and are very helpful in doing that.
Something with a historical value, however, does not mean that it should be used as basis for creating a new sacramental rite about 1700 years later from these documents. There are so many problems with this idea it's hard to even begin to comment, and I am surprised that no one has ever really looked into this very deeply, as far as I am aware. So, I will point out some problems with using the document, "The Apostolic Tradition," as the basis of creating the new episcopal consecration rite:
1. We cannot be certain who authored the documents attributed to Hippolytus. We do not know if it was he that wrote them, someone else, or many authors. There is much uncertainty about all of this.
2. The documents exist in many ancient languages, Latin, Greek, Egyptian, Coptic, etc. To further complicate matters, the texts in the various languages are not identical! In my opinion, this fact alone should have ended the idea of using this text as the core document to form the new rite.
3. In order to try to understand what "Hippolytus" wrote, scholars who could read the ancient languages and had the ability to undertake this task did a great service in trying to compare the various texts to reconstruct what "he" might have written. When a scholar does such a thing, he is using his own judgment, and there is no way to know for certainty that he is correct. Normally, such an idea of reconstructing such a text is a good thing, for historical purposes, and has a great academic value as such, but that is not what happened in this case. It's very possible that Dom Botte meant to merely undertake this academic task for the good of the Church, when he initially reconstructed the rite, and if that's the case, it's laudable, but it should absolutely have ended there. In my opinion, he should have known better than to use his reconstruction of what "Hippolytus" might have wrote as a basis to replace the ancient, time tested, and certainly valid Roman rite, replacing it with a rite based on his personal reconstruction of what he in his own judgment believed that "Hippolytus" wrote based on his opinion of how to reconcile different ancient texts that were not in agreement.
4. My next post, coming soon, is going to illustrate that even though Dom Botte was respected as a scholar, his work is not without criticism. There were problems with his reconstruction, and this has been pointed out by other scholars. Academic studies and papers rely on a peer review, to try to get to the truth as close as possible, and Dom Botte, as a scholar, must have known his works were certainly not infallible, and other scholars of equal or greater ability to also evaluate the works of "Hippolytus" in the ancient languages may find problems with his work or even do a better job at reconstructing the texts. With that said, in my opinion, Dom Botte, should have never used his reconstruction as a basis for a new sacramental rite, knowing fully all the problems and uncertainty in using his personal reconstruction, with all his private judgments on what the text may have said, did not say, what should be included, what should me modified, and what should be omitted.
5. When Fr. Pierre Marie, in column 2 of his comparison chart uses the "Rite of Hippolytus" in comparison to the 1968 Rite of Paul VI, he does not warn the reader of any of these problems, and simply gives the text as reconstructed by Dom Botte, as though that is what "Hippolytus" wrote. The reader could very easily believe that this rite of "Hippolytus" from the chart, taken from Dom Botte's book, was actually used in the the Catholic Church, but that is not true. The fact is that we don't know this is what "Hippolytus" wrote for a fact, and neither does Fr. Pierre Marie, or even the late Dom Botte or anyone else for that matter. It's all based on the private judgment of a single scholar, Dom Botte, which by the way is all part of a very large topic of significant academic controversy, to which much is not settled and is still being studied and papers are still being written on in academic circles even to our current times!
3. The Roman rite and the Eastern rites have both stood the test of time, and both descend from the ancient rites that were in use, and to which there are no written records at least from the very ancient days. There was, however, Tradition, the passing down of these rites from generation to generation, and they did develop over time, but they all descended from the source which was Our Lord, followed by the early Catholic Church. To throw out what has been passed down, first by unwritten Tradition, then later written, and constantly used as the approved rite of the Catholic Church, developed over time, but remaining substantially the same rite, and with absolute certainty a valid rite, in favor of a novel rite, that we cannot be certain in any way was ever used in the Church, based solely on the private judgment of one man, who reconstructed the rite to be what he in his opinion thought it may have been, from differing ancient texts, written in different languages, all allegedly coming from Hippolytus, is nothing short of insanity.
Something with a historical value, however, does not mean that it should be used as basis for creating a new sacramental rite about 1700 years later from these documents. There are so many problems with this idea it's hard to even begin to comment, and I am surprised that no one has ever really looked into this very deeply, as far as I am aware. So, I will point out some problems with using the document, "The Apostolic Tradition," as the basis of creating the new episcopal consecration rite:
1. We cannot be certain who authored the documents attributed to Hippolytus. We do not know if it was he that wrote them, someone else, or many authors. There is much uncertainty about all of this.
2. The documents exist in many ancient languages, Latin, Greek, Egyptian, Coptic, etc. To further complicate matters, the texts in the various languages are not identical! In my opinion, this fact alone should have ended the idea of using this text as the core document to form the new rite.
3. In order to try to understand what "Hippolytus" wrote, scholars who could read the ancient languages and had the ability to undertake this task did a great service in trying to compare the various texts to reconstruct what "he" might have written. When a scholar does such a thing, he is using his own judgment, and there is no way to know for certainty that he is correct. Normally, such an idea of reconstructing such a text is a good thing, for historical purposes, and has a great academic value as such, but that is not what happened in this case. It's very possible that Dom Botte meant to merely undertake this academic task for the good of the Church, when he initially reconstructed the rite, and if that's the case, it's laudable, but it should absolutely have ended there. In my opinion, he should have known better than to use his reconstruction of what "Hippolytus" might have wrote as a basis to replace the ancient, time tested, and certainly valid Roman rite, replacing it with a rite based on his personal reconstruction of what he in his own judgment believed that "Hippolytus" wrote based on his opinion of how to reconcile different ancient texts that were not in agreement.
4. My next post, coming soon, is going to illustrate that even though Dom Botte was respected as a scholar, his work is not without criticism. There were problems with his reconstruction, and this has been pointed out by other scholars. Academic studies and papers rely on a peer review, to try to get to the truth as close as possible, and Dom Botte, as a scholar, must have known his works were certainly not infallible, and other scholars of equal or greater ability to also evaluate the works of "Hippolytus" in the ancient languages may find problems with his work or even do a better job at reconstructing the texts. With that said, in my opinion, Dom Botte, should have never used his reconstruction as a basis for a new sacramental rite, knowing fully all the problems and uncertainty in using his personal reconstruction, with all his private judgments on what the text may have said, did not say, what should be included, what should me modified, and what should be omitted.
5. When Fr. Pierre Marie, in column 2 of his comparison chart uses the "Rite of Hippolytus" in comparison to the 1968 Rite of Paul VI, he does not warn the reader of any of these problems, and simply gives the text as reconstructed by Dom Botte, as though that is what "Hippolytus" wrote. The reader could very easily believe that this rite of "Hippolytus" from the chart, taken from Dom Botte's book, was actually used in the the Catholic Church, but that is not true. The fact is that we don't know this is what "Hippolytus" wrote for a fact, and neither does Fr. Pierre Marie, or even the late Dom Botte or anyone else for that matter. It's all based on the private judgment of a single scholar, Dom Botte, which by the way is all part of a very large topic of significant academic controversy, to which much is not settled and is still being studied and papers are still being written on in academic circles even to our current times!
3. The Roman rite and the Eastern rites have both stood the test of time, and both descend from the ancient rites that were in use, and to which there are no written records at least from the very ancient days. There was, however, Tradition, the passing down of these rites from generation to generation, and they did develop over time, but they all descended from the source which was Our Lord, followed by the early Catholic Church. To throw out what has been passed down, first by unwritten Tradition, then later written, and constantly used as the approved rite of the Catholic Church, developed over time, but remaining substantially the same rite, and with absolute certainty a valid rite, in favor of a novel rite, that we cannot be certain in any way was ever used in the Church, based solely on the private judgment of one man, who reconstructed the rite to be what he in his opinion thought it may have been, from differing ancient texts, written in different languages, all allegedly coming from Hippolytus, is nothing short of insanity.