|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 4, 2023 10:57:44 GMT -5
With previous posts, the focus was on looking at whether the novel rite of Paul VI for the consecration of bishops was identical to an eastern rite, or whether it was used previously in the Church in an ancient and out of use rite. The evidence shows that it is not found in an eastern rite, and the ancient and out of use rite, namely, the rite of "Hippolytus" is not reliable, as it is merely a reconstruction of what scholars believe the rite may have said, not a certainly used rite in the Church. The next question to look at it in this complex matter of the 1968 episcopal consecration rite of Paul VI is what the form is. The matter is uncontested, as it is the placing of hands. All agree on that, but not all agree on what the essential form is for this rite, which is the purpose of this post. Why does this matter? The reason for isolating the core form from the rest of the rite, is that the form must contain all that is necessary for validity in and of itself. The rest of the rite may provide context to what is stated in the form, but the form itself may not be defective. The text of 1968 consecration rite of bishops of Paul VI:How do we know that the form of this rite is only the middle paragraph, in blue font above? It is in this section that the co-consecrators place the hand on the candidate with the principal consecrator and say the prayer with the principal consecrator. In the first and the third paragraph, it is the only the principal consecrator who says the prayers while placing his hands on the candidate. Our first source is Paul VI who specifically stated that this center paragraph "and now pour forth..." is the essential form. Paul VI in his 1968 Apostolic Constitution, Novi ritus approbantur ad ordinationem Diaconi, Presbyteri et Episcopi, taught: English translation provided by L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 27 June 1968, page 2, as republished on the EWTN website linked HEREPope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution, 30 November 1944, linked HERE, ordered the bishops who assist with the principal consecrators to also say all of the words said by the principal consecrating bishop, although most of it silently. Paul VI's new rite does not call for the assisting bishops to do this, and they only say the middle paragraph as noted above. As Pope Pius XII now ordered the term co-consecrator to be used for the assisting bishops, it is reasonable to conclude that at least in the Roman rite, that only those prayers said by all bishops, the principal consecrator and the co-consecrators, make up the essential form of the sacrament. To say otherwise, if only an incomplete part of the essential form is said by the assisting bishops, is to say that the other bishops are mere witnesses to the sacrament rather than co-consecrators. Since the co-consecrators in the 1968 rite do not say the first and third paragraphs, and only say with the principal consecrator, the second paragraph, it is only the second paragraph that is the essential form for validity, not the others, and in this paragraph alone, irrespective of the others, that the form must be essentially completed. For anyone to say otherwise is to then deny that the co-consecrators are really co-consecrators, as they would then not say the complete form, merely part of it. Pope Pius XII taught: According to the principle as taught by Pope Pius XII, if the essential form in the 1968 rite is not just the second paragraph, but is all three as some assert, and as the co-consecrators do not participate in saying the first and third paragraphs, then by definition, they would only be assisting bishops, not co-consecrating bishops. But, they are labeled co-consecrators, and Paul VI explicitly taught what the essential form was, which is only the second paragraph, which is why the 1968 rite only has the co-consecrators say this one paragraph together. Therefore, it is only the second paragraph which must contain all words that along with the matter, the placing of the hands on the candidate, that must have all requisites for validity, irrespective of the anything else in the rite.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 29, 2023 9:23:35 GMT -5
Please note that I am not here arguing that the 1968 rite is valid, still less that every administration of it would be valid.
Replying in a drive-by fashion, I'm not sure that these points stand. It was pointed out to me a while ago, that Pius XII wrote that the form of the sacrament is the entire Preface, of which certain words are essential for validity:
Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and 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.
[...]
Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:
“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.”
Nor is this unique to Holy Orders. Consider the following forms of the two most commonly administered sacraments in the Church:
Essential/sufficient: Hoc est corpus meum Form: Hoc est enim corpus meum
Essential/sufficient: Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis Form: Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, etc.
Here are two authors understanding this matter in the same way:
Callan & McHugh: "The form consists in the words of the "Preface" of which the following are essential and required for validity..."
Prummer: "For the episcopate the matter seems to be the imposition of hands by the consecrating bishop and the form is the prayer which accompanies this imposition".
Next, we see that Paul VI uses the same language and idea:
Finally, in the Ordination of a Bishop, the matter is the imposition of hands, performed in silence by the consecrating Bishops, or at least by the principal Consecrator, over the head of the Bishop-elect before the prayer of consecration. The form consists of the words of the same prayer of consecration, of which the following pertain to the essence of the rite, and hence are required for validity: "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 be gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name."
Again, we see here that Paul VI is doing the same general thing as Pius XII - designating the form, and then stating which part of it is necessary/sufficient.
Now, those who are committed to the idea that Paul VI was the true pope are obliged to argue that the so-called "essential form" - a phrase which neither he nor Pius XII actually use (an innovation?) - is indeed sufficient to do what it is meant to do - ie, make a bishop, and fulfil the requirements of Pius XII. Namely, to "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."
However, as I have no interest in defending Paul VI's claim to the papacy, I'm happy to concede that the words he designates as sufficient are in fact insufficient.
Once conceded, though, the question of validity evidently turns on the facts of the form, not the so-called "essential form". The question remains, in now greater clarity once Paul VI's error is conceded:
Is the form - the whole preface - capable of designating the power of order (either by name, or by some special attribute of the order) and the grace of the Holy Ghost?
As Wilhelm and Scannell wrote:
"This prayer should specify the particular order which is being conferred, or should mention the powers conferred by the Order. 'The imposition of hands... by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confirmation. In the case of priestly ordination, the words should 'definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power... The same holds good of Episcopal consecration."
And as the English bishops wrote in the vindication:
"You have failed to observe the word 'or’ in the proposition in which the Bull states what the requirements are. The proposition is disjunctive. The rite for the priesthood, the Pope says, 'must definitely express the sacred Order of the priesthood or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.' You do not seem to have perceived the importance of this little word 'or', and have taken it to be the equivalent of 'and'. What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which the candidate is being promoted must be distinctly indicated either by its accepted name or by an explicit reference to the grace and power which belongs to it. And, of course, he means us to understand that the same alternative requirements hold with regard to the form for the episcopate. The form must either designate the Order by its accepted name of 'bishop ' or 'high priest' or it must indicate that the high priesthood is the grace and power imparted. Nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable, for in the Catholic Church the alternative phrases are perfectly equivalent. The Catholic Church has always meant by the term 'priest' ( sacerdos ) a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice , and again by the terms 'priest' ( presbyter ) and bishop ' ( episcopus ) or 'high priest' (summus sacerdos), the possessors of this power in its substance and in its plenitude respectively."
Finally, let's also remember that the immediate context of this rite was *not* the Novus Ordo, but the 1965 rite, which for all its flaws cannot be said to have entailed or implied a change in the meaning of the terms "priest" or "bishop".
This is nothing to do with being "saved by context" - nor, as I said, am I arguing that it is valid - nor that its usual administration would be either (ie problems of translation, intention and administration would certainly remain).
But the point is that the framing of the question hitherto, mainly by certain clergy, has been extremely misleading. Nor is this the only example of such misleading polemics, as we all well know.
At this stage, I think that one of the most important tasks we can do is to look very carefully at the arguments that we have received and to jettison anything in them that is uncertain or fallacious. The uncertain and fallacious arguments have convinced some people, but not others - and when some of our smarter interlocutors noticed the flaws in these satellite arguments, they cannot help but lose confidence in whatever else we are saying, as well as using them as a pretext for dismissing whatever we might be saying - even if it is more important and more certain.
I can't guarantee that I won't let others have the privilege of the last word here, but I may reply if I can do so.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 30, 2023 4:36:14 GMT -5
If I may give a further example of what I am suggesting is the state of affairs. The modern catechism reads as follows: 1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church: God, the Father of mercies, through the death and the resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.The instruction "The Roman Ritual: The Rite of Penance" (from the 1970s, extract here:https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Penance/Penance-Intro.pdf) reads as follows, with similar words to Pius XII and Paul VI on orders: The Prayer of the Penitent and the Absolution by the Priest19 After this the penitent manifests his contrition and resolution to begin a new life by means of a prayer for God’s pardon. It is desirable that this prayer should be based on the words of Scripture. Following this prayer, the priest extends his hands, or at least his right hand, over the head of the penitent and pronounces the formula of absolution, in which the essential words are: ‘I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. As he says the final words the priest makes the sign of the cross over the penitent. The form of absolution (see no. 46) indicates that the reconciliation of the penitent comes from the mercy of the Father; it shows the connection between the reconciliation of the sinner and the paschal mystery of Christ; it stresses the role of the Holy Spirit in the forgiveness of sins; finally, it underlines the ecclesial aspect of the sacrament because reconciliation with God is asked for and given through the ministry of the Church.In the Latin, No. 46 is the prayer given above (God, the Father of Mercies, etc), with the essential words in capitals, as in our old missals. Available here. archive.org/details/OrdoPaenitentiae1974/page/n28/mode/1up This is a clear example of the form being a longer prayer, longer than the words which are essential. Now I'm not presenting this to prove anything, but rather to set the stage for an analogy to illustrate what Paul VI *might* have done with the consecration, ie, to illustrate how he may have botched the affair. Imagine, if you will, that Paul VI had stated that the following words in bold were the essential words, rather than "I absolve you, etc": God, the Father of mercies,through the death and the resurrection of his Sonhas reconciled the world to himselfand sent the Holy Spirit among usfor the forgiveness of sins;through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace,and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.If Paul VI had done such a thing, we would be inclined to say that he was wrong, because the words in bold, fictionally designated as essential are not the proper form. There might be some who would argue that they are capable of being the sacramental form, but let's just leave that to one side and say no, they are wholly inadequate. This would raise problems for a) the claim of a man to be pope, as a pope surely cannot err here in his universal discipline of the sacraments - and b) the validity of absolutions given only with the words in bold. But are we really confident in saying that this error renders the whole form incapable of validity? Personally, I wouldn't be. As I said before, the question would surely turn on whether the rest of the form is capable of specifying the matter sufficiently as the sign instituted by Christ. Remember, the whole prayer is designated as the form; and the whole prayer / form contains words which are adequate for the form (indeed, identical to the Catholic form). I'm aware of the arguments that could be raised against validity in this counter-factual case, but I'm not sure how strong or conclusive they really are - nor whether they really rise to the level of probability. Another example: many Easterns, I gather, believe that the epiclesis is what effects the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord - but this comes after the words of consecration. If they really think that, and really doubt or deny that the words of consecration are the form - but nonetheless carry out the rite as a whole seriously and with the intention to do what the Church does - are their masses rendered invalid? I don't know, but again, I wouldn't be confident to assert it at all. I'm recalling again the debates over ordination which Pius XII himself sought to resolve practically, and which will never truly be resolved, as to what was the form/matter prior to his constitution.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 30, 2023 6:29:28 GMT -5
To return to Pacelli's original post, it's worth making the following point: Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution, 30 November 1944, linked HERE, ordered the bishops who assist with the principal consecrators to also say all of the words said by the principal consecrating bishop, although most of it silently. Paul VI's new rite does not call for the assisting bishops to do this, and they only say the middle paragraph as noted above. As Pope Pius XII now ordered the term co-consecrator to be used for the assisting bishops, it is reasonable to conclude that at least in the Roman rite, that only those prayers said by all bishops, the principal consecrator and the co-consecrators, make up the essential form of the sacrament. To say otherwise, if only an incomplete part of the essential form is said by the assisting bishops, is to say that the other bishops are mere witnesses to the sacrament rather than co-consecrators. Since the co-consecrators in the 1968 rite do not say the first and third paragraphs, and only say with the principal consecrator, the second paragraph, it is only the second paragraph that is the essential form for validity, not the others, and in this paragraph alone, irrespective of the others, that the form must be essentially completed. For anyone to say otherwise is to then deny that the co-consecrators are really co-consecrators, as they would then not say the complete form, merely part of it. [...] But, they are labeled co-consecrators, and Paul VI explicitly taught what the essential form was, which is only the second paragraph, which is why the 1968 rite only has the co-consecrators say this one paragraph together. Given that we deny Paul VI's claim to the papacy to begin with, I see no problem in accepting the whole thing is a mess. I'm quite happy to deny that the co-consecrators are really such, as they do not say the complete form. This argument would only have force if Paul VI was the pope, and if we were trying to avoid denying his claim. In other words, we need not have any interest in what Paul VI might wrongly designate as essential, nor in what he labels as co-consecrators. These things might be good arguments against his claim to the papacy, but they don't change the fundamental question: does the form from this botched reform, taken as a whole, convey what Leo XIII, Pius XII and the other theologians say it must, in order to confect the sacrament? The only way that this could be a problem is if it could be shown that, even if the prayer was sufficient as a whole, by designating the words he does as essential, he renders it impossible or doubtful as to whether the consecrating bishop would be confecting a sacrament with the other words. But, as the examples above suggest (Latin orders pre-Pius XII, and the Eastern Mass), I am not sure that this is going to hold water.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 30, 2023 8:40:08 GMT -5
sdwright , You have a legitimate points and I do not disagree with you on this, and I thank you for your comments on my post. I have been meaning to get back to this topic, but due to being busy, and my attention constantly being pulled elsewhere, it has been getting put on the back burner. Anyway, I think you and I agree that weak arguments must be discarded and only the best arguments kept. I do have some comments on your post: 1. I agree with you that if Paul VI were not Pope, then his teaching is essentially useless and not authoritative, so his designating the form would would not be binding. 2. This would however be a problem for those who believe in Paul VI's claim and are defending the validity of the rite and using the entire consecratory prayer as the form, all three paragraphs, rather than the middle paragraph. Since they believe Paul VI was pope, then they would believe themselves to be bound to believe him on this teaching. 3. Another point on those defending the rite who accept Paul VI's claim, if the entire consecratory prayer is needed for validity, as Paul VI's designated form is lacking as far as the requirements, then logically, they must admit that there are no co-consecrators at any of these episcopal "ordinations" since the time they began being used, as only the principal consecrator says all prayers that are essential, and the assistant bishops only say a portion of what is essential. 4. In my opinion, the strongest argument for validity is that the Church cannot give an invalid rite, and as we hold Paul VI was not a Pope, then this argument does not hold. 5. The novel rite, therefore, was formed outside the Church, approved by a man that was not a pope, and does not exactly match of any approved Catholic rite, in the Eastern or Roman rites, so it must be carefully studied as to its validity, which is very similar to the case with the Anglican novel rites. 6. My provisional opinion is that there is enough ambiguity in the rite, and secondly that the context of the rite itself creates a second level of ambiguity to the wording used, so even if all three paragraphs are to be regarded as to being the form, I still have doubts as to whether it is valid, and by that doubtful. I believe we need an authoritative answer on this matter urgently from Rome, but as we know, that doesn't seem to be happening anytime to soon. 7. Following on point #6, I would also argue that even if the words used in the 1968 were sufficient for validity in the context of an approved Catholic rite, their use in this novel rite is not equivalent, and therefore may fail as far as being the same thing. This principle is one that we learned from Apostolicae Curae, so we must also treat it as well. The schismatic orthodox do not have such a problem with their stolen rites from the Church, as they did not in any tamper with the rites. When the early Anglican schismatics did tamper with the rites, and created new rites, they opened doors that created far more problems as to validity, than I think most people realize. The same goes for the rites of Paul VI, presuming that he was not Pope, as you and I both believe, the same doors were opened to a wide range of problems as to validity, and it goes beyond just strictly the words being used. This was going to be one of my next posts on this, so hopefully your post above will get the torch lit under me to get this moving now. 8. I also believe a significant problem exists in the form of the 1968 ordination rite for priests which is another big topic. I will post more on points #6 and #7 soon, to explain why I believe there is a doubt in the rite, hopefully later today or tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 31, 2023 4:24:23 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli. I'll go through your post with my comments in bold: sdwright , You have a legitimate points and I do not disagree with you on this, and I thank you for your comments on my post. I have been meaning to get back to this topic, but due to being busy, and my attention constantly being pulled elsewhere, it has been getting put on the back burner. Anyway, I think you and I agree that weak arguments must be discarded and only the best arguments kept. I do have some comments on your post: 1. I agree with you that if Paul VI were not Pope, then his teaching is essentially useless and not authoritative, so his designating the form would would not be binding. Agreed.2. This would however be a problem for those who believe in Paul VI's claim and are defending the validity of the rite and using the entire consecratory prayer as the form, all three paragraphs, rather than the middle paragraph. Since they believe Paul VI was pope, then they would believe themselves to be bound to believe him on this teaching. Agreed. This is not relevant to us, though.3. Another point on those defending the rite who accept Paul VI's claim, if the entire consecratory prayer is needed for validity, as Paul VI's designated form is lacking as far as the requirements, then logically, they must admit that there are no co-consecrators at any of these episcopal "ordinations" since the time they began being used, as only the principal consecrator says all prayers that are essential, and the assistant bishops only say a portion of what is essential. Agreed, this is simply showing what a strangely botched job was made of it.4. In my opinion, the strongest argument for validity is that the Church cannot give an invalid rite, and as we hold Paul VI was not a Pope, then this argument does not hold. Agreed, in so far as this is a shortcut and the normal means for us to accept the validity of a rite! But the Church has considered in the past whether rites arising from outside her pale are valid, and that is of course what AC was (even if it found it to be invalid). This would seem to indicate that we it is not impossible for such rites to be valid.5. The novel rite, therefore, was formed outside the Church, approved by a man that was not a pope, and does not exactly match of any approved Catholic rite, in the Eastern or Roman rites, so it must be carefully studied as to its validity, which is very similar to the case with the Anglican novel rites. I'm not sure how close it really is to the Anglican rites. There are similarities, and bad intent, of course. But let's recall that one of the key fundamental problems of the Anglican rites was not the rite itself, but the so-called eucharistic liturgies and the statements of faith floating around at the time. This is a problem for the P6 rite, but not in the same way - as I said, the Mass at the time was that of 1965, which cannot be said to reject the notion of a propitiatory sacrifice or sacrificing priesthood. Similarly, it was received without much serious protest, at least externally, by the men who arguably continued to be the legitimate Catholic bishops of the Roman rite. (That is, unless we think they all lost office much more rapidly than that, and in any case this isn't a decisive argument one way or another, just circumstantial – but it does indicate some differences that give me pause when comparing it to the reformation.)6. My provisional opinion is that there is enough ambiguity in the rite, and secondly that the context of the rite itself creates a second level of ambiguity to the wording used, so even if all three paragraphs are to be regarded as to being the form, I still have doubts as to whether it is valid, and by that doubtful. I believe we need an authoritative answer on this matter urgently from Rome, but as we know, that doesn't seem to be happening anytime to soon. I agree that an authoritative answer is needed in itself, and as I said, I'm not arguing hard that they are valid, and don't feel personally able to act on what would be at this stage not much more than a probable opinion.
That said, I note that on p 176 of Eric's longer paper on jurisdiction we find the following comment for exceptional cases from Cappello, with his reasoning in the surrounding text: "Therefore we say that to follow a probable opinion that is less than safe is licit in receiving the sacraments, insofar as otherwise one would be liable to grave inconvenience on account of doubts, anxiety, etc., and indeed only in these cases do we affirm it to be licit, in which such kinds of inconveniences would otherwise be present indeed." However, it does not seem clear that he is including probable opinions of validity, but rather to do with whether one is in a state of grace etc.
Returning to the point and going further, I'm not sure how ambiguous the full form can really be said to be (in itself) given that it clearly names the rank, and the grace of the Holy Ghost. That would seem to satisfy the requirements of the popes.
7. Following on point #6, I would also argue that even if the words used in the 1968 were sufficient for validity in the context of an approved Catholic rite, their use in this novel rite is not equivalent, and therefore may fail as far as being the same thing. This principle is one that we learned from Apostolicae Curae, so we must also treat it as well. The schismatic orthodox do not have such a problem with their stolen rites from the Church, as they did not in any tamper with the rites. When the early Anglican schismatics did tamper with the rites, and created new rites, they opened doors that created far more problems as to validity, than I think most people realize. The same goes for the rites of Paul VI, presuming that he was not Pope, as you and I both believe, the same doors were opened to a wide range of problems as to validity, and it goes beyond just strictly the words being used. This was going to be one of my next posts on this, so hopefully your post above will get the torch lit under me to get this moving now. I agree that we should be careful about the possible existence of factors of which we are not aware. This is of course what is meant by the English bishops in their famous text:
[The idea that local churches were] permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies in previous use, and even to remodel the existing rites in the most drastic manner, is a proposition for which we know of no historical foundation, and which appears to us absolutely incredible.
[…] Immemorial usage, whether or not it has in the course of ages incorporated superfluous accretions, must, in the estimation of those who believe in a divinely guarded, visible Church, at least have retained whatever is necessary; so that in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential.
I look forward to reading what you produce here.8. I also believe a significant problem exists in the form of the 1968 ordination rite for priests which is another big topic. I'm aware of the problems of the wider rite, although I remain uncertain about what to make of them. However, regarding the form, I'm very doubtful that the removal of "ut" is sufficient to render the form doubtful. Salza found the following three sacram pieces of evidence which are certainly interesting:
archive.org/details/gregoriansacrame00cath/page/n63%20page%207 archive.org/details/bub_gb_6rVhPJ6sHdkC/page/n51 archive.org/details/monumentaveteri01gerbgoog/page/n54
Taken from this email. www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/email-exchange-between-robert-siscoe.htmlI will post more on points #6 and #7 soon, to explain why I believe there is a doubt in the rite, hopefully later today or tomorrow. I look forward to it. I'd also like to remind everyone that the Novus Ordo has a problem with even making sure people are baptised properly, and we saw two of its priests having to be re-ordained because of this recently. This discussion is about the arguments used to critique the new rites of ordination – and even if we were to resolve this issue (unlikely) it wouldn't necessarily result in a carte blanche presumption of validity.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 31, 2023 4:30:43 GMT -5
In other words, we need not have any interest in what Paul VI might wrongly designate as essential, nor in what he labels as co-consecrators. These things might be good arguments against his claim to the papacy, but they don't change the fundamental question: does the form from this botched reform, taken as a whole, convey what Leo XIII, Pius XII and the other theologians say it must, in order to confect the sacrament? The only way that this could be a problem is if it could be shown that, even if the prayer was sufficient as a whole, by designating the words he does as essential, he renders it impossible or doubtful as to whether the consecrating bishop would be confecting a sacrament with the other words. But, as the examples above suggest (Latin orders pre-Pius XII, and the Eastern Mass), I am not sure that this is going to hold water. Returning to the point in the last paragraph, see Francis Clark from Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, p 173 ft 2.: The differences among Catholic theologians in the past as to which was the essential form of the sacrament do not in any case cast doubt on the validity of Catholic ordinations in general. In practice the ordaining ministers pronounced all the various formulae, and their general intention, to do by the whole ceremony what the Church does, was sufficient to ensure an adequate sacramental intention. A similar principle explains why the Greeks consecrate validly when celebrating the Eucharist, even though they think the sacrament is effected at the epiclesis, and so presumably do not direct their intention explicitly to the words of consecration. As Sylvius put it: “Neque necesse est intentionem versari circa formam, ted circa actum totum in genere."
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 31, 2023 4:35:48 GMT -5
Also, from the same book by Clark, take a look at the following from pp 183-4. The text below, not the last word on anything, contains points that could be used to argue for and against validity - but more interestingly, it shows that some of the ways in which our modern trad writers have framed the question are not the only ways of doing so. Line breaks added. --- Since the meaning of words can be changed by human usage and convention, and the efficacy of sacramental words depends on their meaning, it may happen that liturgical terms which clearly convey the sacramental symbolism in one context, do not do so in another. The only formulae that in fallibly and necessarily contain the essential significance of a sacrament are those which have been canonised by being instituted by Christ and His Church for that purpose. Such words, when exactly reproduced, are removed beyond the reach of ambiguity or private distortion. Thus for example the formula for Baptism and the words of consecration in the Eucharist are always and necessarily a sufficient sacramental form, even if included in a rite of obvious heretical purport. (Needless to say, the use of such a form does not necessarily guarantee that the sacrament is valid, for it could still be nullified by defect of matter or of ministerial intention.) To take another example, since the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius ΧΠ it would seem that no priestly ordination in which the minister uses exactly the words prescribed in that document (‘Da quaesumus, Omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum presbyterii dignitatem ... etc.9), could be impugned on the grounds of defective form, whatever defect there might be in the other elements of the rite. Where, however, a new liturgical form is introduced and no such canonised formula is employed, there cannot be certainty of its validity until its credentials have been established, and it has been acknowledged, expressly or implicitly, by the universal Church.3 It is at this ‘unofficial’ stage that human use and abuse of words can so affect their liturgical meaning that it becomes ambiguous or quite altered. Such is the case with the Ordinal, even as it is today. The meaning of the words ‘priest’ and ‘bishop’—which can vary according to sectarian interpretation—inevitably became coloured from the outset by the native character and spirit’ of the Ordinal: the objective signification of those words in that setting is no longer sufficient for the sacrament. Footnote 3: By this I do not mean that all new or modified liturgical forms developed in the Church have always been submitted to the Holy See for approval before they could be put into use! Doubtless in earlier centuries modified forms, which were in fact perfectly valid, were introduced in local churches or by individual bishops on their own initiative. My point is that just as no one bishop—apart from the Pope—or local church is an independently infallible guide in doctrinal teaching, so no individual bishops or local churches can decide with certain authority whether a new or modified liturgical form is necessarily and permanently valid. Only the Church as a whole, the Mystical Body of Christ and the guardian of His sacraments, has the power to decide that with final certainty. Today we look for explicit pronouncements on such matters from the Holy See; in the early centuries, when the Church's external organisation was looser, the approval by the universal Church of local sacramental liturgies would be shown in a less explicit manner. If, for example, a local church were accepted in communion with the other churches of the Catholic world (and especially with the See of Rome), it would be a sufficient guarantee of the validity of the sacramental rites of that church. Nor do I mean that in such cases the sacramental rites of a local church would not be valid until they had been examined and approved by the rest of the Church. In most cases the modified form would be in fact valid from the time of its adoption. But where innovations in sacramental rites had taken place, uncertainty might be possible about the adequacy of the new forms, and the authentic guarantee of their validity could only come from the approval, expressed or tacit, of the universal Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 31, 2023 7:59:25 GMT -5
Hello sdwright , I will be responding to a lot of what you wrote, maybe all today, as I have a lot of time today, so it's a good day to get deeper into this complex discussion. Thank you for the discussion, and I hope it bears good fruit. sdwright wrote in bold commenting on point 5 which was made by me, not in bold: My main point was that the case must be examined using the same method as the theologians used in determining if the rite was valid, and to which Pope Leo used in giving his teaching on the matter. When I wrote, "which is very similar to the case with the Anglican novel rites," the similarity is that in both cases we are studying a rite that is not an approved Catholic rite, and which was made by unauthorized men, therefore the test case is the case of the Anglican orders, as this is the only case that we have in which theologians wrote on and studied for centuries and we have authoritative papal teaching to instruct us on the principles. It seems that you took what I wrote to mean that the case of the Paul VI episcopal rites and the Anglican rites are similar in their details, which is not what I meant. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so thank you for your comment. With that said, even though it wasn't my point above, I do believe there are some similarities between the two cases as far as the details, as the theology of the development of the Novus Ordo Missae, was clearly developing at the same time as these new rites, and that context cannot be ignored, as the context of the novel Anglican rites was the novel theology regarding the sacrifice of the mass at the same time. I realize that Dom Botte was focused on ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox sects, but there was much more at play at the time than just Botte, so his ideas do not settle this. Does the context of the Novus Ordo Missae at the same time as these new ordination rites being developed with new theology which Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci described as representing, "both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent," mean that the terms being used in these novel rites do not mean the same thing as previously used by the Church? It's certainly arguable, and it is a factor. The English bishops summed up the procedure that Pope Leo used when examining and judging the invalidity of the Anglican orders, and that shows us the path that we must use in examining the 1968 ordination/episcopal consecration rites of Paul VI: The question to be asked here is did the sect under Paul VI by changing the theology of the Mass, de facto cause a change in the theology of the priesthood? It is for the priests to offer the mass, and if this new sect no longer believed the mass was the same as that of the Church, then logically it did not view the priests as having the same purpose as offering the mass of the Church, but a new non-approved rite based on a novel theology, and as a last step in logic, if the priests were being ordained for a new purpose, then clearly the bishops ordaining them also had a new purpose. This background gives the context for what was happening in the sect, as all these new sacramental rites were being developed during the same time period.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 31, 2023 10:03:17 GMT -5
sdwright wrote in bold commenting on point #6 above: I realize your motive is only the truth, not to defend the validity of the Paul VI rite. The implications of all of this cannot be minimized, so your points are well taken in that context. I believe that the opinion of Capello would presuppose that the approved rite is used, and any doubts are from other issues. For example, prior to Apostolicae Curae, I don't think you would find any Catholic theologian or canonist saying that in danger of death, it was safe to confess to an Anglican priest with the hope that their orders were valid. Even though the matter wasn't definitively settled, there was a doubt among most theologians as to the validity of the rite, and it wasn't safe. I will respond to your last point in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 31, 2023 10:22:30 GMT -5
sdwright wrote in bold commenting on point #6 above: I realize your motive is only the truth, not to defend the validity of the Paul VI rite. The implications of all of this cannot be minimized, so your points are well taken in that context. I believe that the opinion of Capello would presuppose that the approved rite is used, and any doubts are from other issues. For example, prior to Apostolicae Curae, I don't think you would find any Catholic theologian or canonist saying that in danger of death, it was safe to confess to an Anglican priest with the hope that their orders were valid. Even though the matter wasn't definitively settled, there was a doubt among most theologians as to the validity of the rite, and it wasn't safe. I will respond to your last point in my next post. I'd like to retract - it is clear from the context that Capello is talking about probable opinions re things like being in the state of grace - not validity
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 31, 2023 18:56:27 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: I agree, that the 1968 rite names the rank and also includes a prayer for the Holy Ghost, but I do not concede that the manner in which this is done is consistent with the requirement of the popes, particularly Pius XII, but to some extent Leo XIII as well. The rite is below, with my comments in red in interjected into the text of the rite, followed by final comments afterwards: The text of 1968 consecration rite of bishops of Paul VI:The last point is to address the issue of whether the center paragraph is the essential part of the form containing all that is needed for validity, as designated as such by Paul VI. I believe that the authors of this rite and Paul VI intended for the middle paragraph to be the essential words of the form, in which validity could be assured, as he designated it as such, and by law ordered that all bishops say those words, but here are my other reasons: 1. The first paragraph is not effecting any consecration, the grace of the Holy Ghost is not being invoked, and the power of order is not being asked for. 2. The second paragraph is clearly invoking the Holy Ghost, but the power being asked for is certainly vague, and the only power even being alluded to is not a power that bishops have anyway, except for the original apostles. This certainly looks to me where the essential words were intended to be, but it fails to complete what is required. 3. The third section is made up of two paragraphs. The first is by all appearances a prayer for the new bishop to be good, without reproach, and to gain God's favor. The second paragraph is one is which the grace of the Holy Ghost is not clearly being invoked, but powers of orders are being prayed for. There is no clear prayer for the grace of the Holy Ghost, only prayers for these powers of order, as it's ambiguous as to who or what is being asked. My last point is that in approved Catholic rites there are presuppositions which "fill in the gaps", so to speak, and the context of using an approved rite makes things that are less explicit able to be understood as to what the rite is saying. The same cannot be said of a rite created by unauthorized innovators who are outside the Church. We cannot presuppose anything. If a new term is introduced for example, who defines it? If a term is used with an ambiguous meaning, how can a Catholic know that it means what the Church itself understands it to mean, when the Church has not used the term? Even approved Catholic terms, for that matter, must not be assumed to have the same meaning as the Church uses, in a rite created outside the Church, so how much more should Catholics be cautious in presupposing that novel terms certainly work in the rite with a Catholic meaning, and signify what is needed for the rite to be valid? There is not a clear and unambiguous sentence that connects a prayer for the grace of the Holy Ghost to the power of order. When the Holy Ghost is presumably being invoked (middle section) there is no unambiguous prayer for the order to be received. Later, in the last part of the rite, (final paragraph) there is a prayer to "grant by the power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood," certain powers of the order, but it is not a specific prayer to the Holy Ghost under any titles used by the Church for His grace, and is certainly not invoking the Holy Ghost by name. I also do not believe one can connect the prayers in the middle paragraph with the prayers in the final paragraph to correct the problem, as they are separate invocations, and therefore must be treated separately, not together. To say this another way, one cannot connect the prayer for the governing spirit to the powers of orders named in the final paragraph, as they are separate prayers with separate invocations and each have their own set of problems. There are more problems to be discussed, so this is not exhaustive, but I have been going through my notes and sources all day, so I think this is it for today.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Sept 1, 2023 3:23:08 GMT -5
Thanks again, Pacelli.
Picking out three key points (the text in italics is Pacelli's, bold is mine.)
The following prayer was designated as the essential form by Paul VI. [...]
The problem here is that Paul VI did no such thing. He said the following, following the language of Pius XII:
"The form consists of the words of the same prayer of consecration, of which the following pertain to the essence of the rite, and hence are required for validity: "And now pour forth, etc."
A recurring theme of this forum - one which I have appreciated the most - is the danger of using neologisms, or terms that are out of place. I don't want to say that "essential form" is a neologism - I don't know enough - but I do note that, for example, it doesn't appear anywhere in Callan and McHugh.
Fr Cekada and others have thrown dust over this issue (and other issues) such that "essential form" seems to have been consecrated by traditional use amongst sedes! But I think that once we realise that he has put a very particular and quite inaccurate interpretation on the text before us, much of the problems and criticisms lose their power. For example, Pacelli also wrote:
(This first prayer is not relevant as there is no consecratory act being done, so I think it should not be bothered with at least with any discussion regarding validity.)
In my opinion it is a little bit baseless to say that there is "no consecratory act being done" and therefore we can leave it aside for validity. It's part of the form as received.
To my mind, there really is no getting around this.
The last point is to address the issue of whether the center paragraph is the essential part of the form containing all that is needed for validity, as designated as such by Paul VI. I believe that the authors of this rite and Paul VI intended for the middle paragraph to be the essential words of the form, in which validity could be assured, as he designated it as such, and by law ordered that all bishops say those words, but here are my other reasons:
So we agree with this phrasing, that the centre paragraph is the essential part of the form, and supposedly containing what Paul VI designated as sufficient for validity. There is no debate here.
But the question rather is, if we concede that this essential part of the form is inadequate or at least doubtful, what does this do to the rest of the form? I think that this question cannot be answered by saying that the rest of the prayer is not really the form, for reasons discussed above in this thread.
For both Pacelli and me, we are denying something that Paul VI said.
I am denying (or rather, doubting/conceding against) that what he designated as the essential and sufficient part of the form is sufficient for the sacrament.
Pacelli, if I may, is denying that what he designated as the form is actually the form – but rather that which he designated as essential is the form. Implicit in this is that the serious use of the whole prayer is insufficient to "fill in the gaps" in question.
Would you agree with that expression of the state of the question, Pacelli?
If I may again, I think that Pacelli's argument is harder to make in the face of the texts before us, once we remove the lens of the various polemics.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 1, 2023 6:53:03 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: Thank you for your comment. This is not what I meant, so let me be more clear: I am not denying that what Paul VI designated as the form is actually the form. I am saying that within the form there are some words which are essential for validity, and in those words must be found the elements for validity as taught by Pope Pius XII. Paul VI's teaching on distinguishing between the form itself and what is essential in the form was not novel, as the same was found in Sacramentum Ordinis:The Pope is distinguishing between the form as a whole, which is the preface, and teaching that specific words are essential within that form that are necessary for validity. So we are clear the Pope also taught that the form must contain specific elements as to validity: The Pope taught some key things here, that the form must univocally signify: 1. The power of order 2. The grace of the Holy Spirit 3. And that signification must be one that is accepted and used by the Church in that sense. To be clear what I am specifically arguing is that there are not found in the specific form of Paul VI's rite (the preface) words which signify what Pius XII taught must be used for validity, (as described above) that can be isolated within the form itself (as described above in distinguishing the form as a whole with specific words necessary for validity that all contain the the elements to make it valid in those designated words), as being necessary for validity, and by this fact I am arguing that specific words that are essential to the form are not found in any of the three sections, even the designated essential words in the middle paragraph, as labeled as such by Paul VI. My provisional conclusion based on this argument is there is a doubt as to validity that must be resolved by Rome. Does that assist to make this clearer?
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Sept 1, 2023 7:15:39 GMT -5
Thanks again Pacelli. There seem to be some ideas in the background here, causing something ofna stalemate. Let's try to bring them out. I do not agree that, in itself, an anti-pope's designation of which words are essential and sufficient has any impact on the validity of the form in which they are placed, provided that the form as a whole does indeed contain words which are truly essential and sufficient. Do you? I do not see the force of the argument that, in order for a form to be valid, the man who putative promulgated it must be correct in his designation of what is essential and sufficient.
|
|