Paul VI's claim that form of new rite came from Hippolytus
Jun 24, 2023 11:28:35 GMT -5
wenceslav, Didymus, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Jun 24, 2023 11:28:35 GMT -5
Paul VI in his 1968 Apostolic Constitution approving, and mandating the use of, the new rite of consecration of bishops asserted that the consecratory prayer, (the form) of the new rite was taken from "ancient sources" in the document, "the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, which he also asserts was written at the beginning of the third century." Paul VI also taught that this "consecratory prayer is still used, in large part, in the ordination rites of the Coptic and West Syrian liturgies.."
Before commenting, I will post the entire paragraph from the Apostolic Constitution, so readers can see that nothing will be taken out of context. Also, one can read read the entire document HERE
1. The document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, as noted in previous posts, is not a document that can be verified with any certainty. There are various reconstructions of this rite, and the reconstruction of Dom Botte was used as the template of the new rite. Paul VI is giving a false impression that the "rite of Hippolytus" is something that is certain and verifiable, as though it is like the Roman Rite or a Byzantine Rite, for example, that we can just open up a book and see what is used. This absolutely is not the case with the rite of "Hippolytus," as is demonstrated from previous posts.
2. It is not known if this truly came from the beginning of the third century as Paul VI asserts, as that is open to dispute, as are many things in regard to this document.
3. Paul VI 's assertion that this rite is still used "in large part" in the Coptic and West Syrian rites, is not accurate. There are certainly resemblances, but the rite is far from identical. In regards to the Maronites, as has been noted in a previous post, at least in regard to the episcopal consecration rite, the 1968 rite of Paul VI resembles the rite of elevation of a patriarch, not the rite of consecration of a bishop. In my next post I will also be showing that the Coptic episcopal consecration rite contains many essential differences with the Paul VI rite as well.
4. Paul VI then teaches, "Thus in the very act of ordination there is a witness to the harmony
of tradition in East and West concerning the apostolic office of bishops," thereby linking his new rite with the eastern rites. I would urge the reader to take note that there was a widespread ignorance of the eastern rites among Roman rite Catholics at this time, and in my opinion, for much of Church history for that matter. There was no easy way for any Catholic, even among scholars to verify this or the other claims made by Paul VI in the paragraph above. Its acceptance was based on trust.
Among the eastern rites, the most known, even among Catholics more aware of the eastern rites, was the Byzantines, as they encompassed many larger and smaller rites all under the Byzantine umbrella, and were much more tied into the western world. Paul VI and his underlings, however, did not use the Byzantine formulation, however, and allegedly used the forms from two very small rites, the Egyptian Copts, and the West Syrian Maronites, (also Syro-Malankara are West Syrian) and due to the linguistic challenges and obscurity of these rites, especially in the pre-internet age, there would be no easy way to check to see if these rites matched the new rite.
One last point, regarding the alleged promotion of ecumenism, as the basis for changing the rite, asserted by Dom Botte, and alluded to by Paul VI in this statement is undermined by the fact that the Coptic and West Syrian rites were (allegedly) used. Does it make sense to (supposedly) use these tiny rites, which among even the schismatics were fairly small, when the Byzantine Orthodox were huge, encompassing many counties on earth, including Russia and much of Eastern Europe, and spread out all through western countries as well. If the policy was to appease the schismatics by showing how we all use the same rites, wouldn't it have had an exponentially larger impact to appease the hundreds of millions of Byzantine schismatics verse the few million Coptic or West Syrian rite Schismatics? The reasoning makes no sense.
From my reading, what does make sense is that Paul VI appointed Dom Botte to lead the task of revising the ordination rites, and Botte was a scholar who dedicated his life to studying the supposed works of Hippolytus, and in my opinion, that is most likely the reason why they chose to go with these rites of "Hippolytus," rather than with the Byzantines. Also, very few on earth had the expertise to verify any of this, so they could act with impunity knowing that these rites allegedly being relied upon, "Hippolytus," Coptic and West Syrian were obscure and the languages used by them, were largely unknown by most outside of their homelands or scholars who studied them.
It is clear that Paul VI, whether knowingly or unknowingly, as he was obviously relying on Botte, misled the Catholic world into believing that this new rite of consecration of bishops was based on a certain ancient rite previously used in the Church from the third century, and also was substantially the same as the Coptic or West Syrian rites in use in 1968. His assertions were incorrect, and the reality is that his new episcopal consecration rite is a novel rite, not found in ancient texts of rites, nor in any eastern rite.
Before commenting, I will post the entire paragraph from the Apostolic Constitution, so readers can see that nothing will be taken out of context. Also, one can read read the entire document HERE
To these words must be added a number of important doctrinal points concerning
the apostolic succession of bishops and their functions and duties. Even if
these themes are already present in the rite of episcopal consecration, it still
seems that they must be better and more precisely expressed. To ensure this, it
was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer that
is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome,
written at the beginning of the third century. This consecratory prayer is still
used, in large part, in the ordination rites of the Coptic and West Syrian
liturgies. Thus in the very act of ordination there is a witness to the harmony
of tradition in East and West concerning the apostolic office of bishops.
the apostolic succession of bishops and their functions and duties. Even if
these themes are already present in the rite of episcopal consecration, it still
seems that they must be better and more precisely expressed. To ensure this, it
was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer that
is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome,
written at the beginning of the third century. This consecratory prayer is still
used, in large part, in the ordination rites of the Coptic and West Syrian
liturgies. Thus in the very act of ordination there is a witness to the harmony
of tradition in East and West concerning the apostolic office of bishops.
1. The document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, as noted in previous posts, is not a document that can be verified with any certainty. There are various reconstructions of this rite, and the reconstruction of Dom Botte was used as the template of the new rite. Paul VI is giving a false impression that the "rite of Hippolytus" is something that is certain and verifiable, as though it is like the Roman Rite or a Byzantine Rite, for example, that we can just open up a book and see what is used. This absolutely is not the case with the rite of "Hippolytus," as is demonstrated from previous posts.
2. It is not known if this truly came from the beginning of the third century as Paul VI asserts, as that is open to dispute, as are many things in regard to this document.
3. Paul VI 's assertion that this rite is still used "in large part" in the Coptic and West Syrian rites, is not accurate. There are certainly resemblances, but the rite is far from identical. In regards to the Maronites, as has been noted in a previous post, at least in regard to the episcopal consecration rite, the 1968 rite of Paul VI resembles the rite of elevation of a patriarch, not the rite of consecration of a bishop. In my next post I will also be showing that the Coptic episcopal consecration rite contains many essential differences with the Paul VI rite as well.
4. Paul VI then teaches, "Thus in the very act of ordination there is a witness to the harmony
of tradition in East and West concerning the apostolic office of bishops," thereby linking his new rite with the eastern rites. I would urge the reader to take note that there was a widespread ignorance of the eastern rites among Roman rite Catholics at this time, and in my opinion, for much of Church history for that matter. There was no easy way for any Catholic, even among scholars to verify this or the other claims made by Paul VI in the paragraph above. Its acceptance was based on trust.
Among the eastern rites, the most known, even among Catholics more aware of the eastern rites, was the Byzantines, as they encompassed many larger and smaller rites all under the Byzantine umbrella, and were much more tied into the western world. Paul VI and his underlings, however, did not use the Byzantine formulation, however, and allegedly used the forms from two very small rites, the Egyptian Copts, and the West Syrian Maronites, (also Syro-Malankara are West Syrian) and due to the linguistic challenges and obscurity of these rites, especially in the pre-internet age, there would be no easy way to check to see if these rites matched the new rite.
One last point, regarding the alleged promotion of ecumenism, as the basis for changing the rite, asserted by Dom Botte, and alluded to by Paul VI in this statement is undermined by the fact that the Coptic and West Syrian rites were (allegedly) used. Does it make sense to (supposedly) use these tiny rites, which among even the schismatics were fairly small, when the Byzantine Orthodox were huge, encompassing many counties on earth, including Russia and much of Eastern Europe, and spread out all through western countries as well. If the policy was to appease the schismatics by showing how we all use the same rites, wouldn't it have had an exponentially larger impact to appease the hundreds of millions of Byzantine schismatics verse the few million Coptic or West Syrian rite Schismatics? The reasoning makes no sense.
From my reading, what does make sense is that Paul VI appointed Dom Botte to lead the task of revising the ordination rites, and Botte was a scholar who dedicated his life to studying the supposed works of Hippolytus, and in my opinion, that is most likely the reason why they chose to go with these rites of "Hippolytus," rather than with the Byzantines. Also, very few on earth had the expertise to verify any of this, so they could act with impunity knowing that these rites allegedly being relied upon, "Hippolytus," Coptic and West Syrian were obscure and the languages used by them, were largely unknown by most outside of their homelands or scholars who studied them.
It is clear that Paul VI, whether knowingly or unknowingly, as he was obviously relying on Botte, misled the Catholic world into believing that this new rite of consecration of bishops was based on a certain ancient rite previously used in the Church from the third century, and also was substantially the same as the Coptic or West Syrian rites in use in 1968. His assertions were incorrect, and the reality is that his new episcopal consecration rite is a novel rite, not found in ancient texts of rites, nor in any eastern rite.