|
Post by sdwright on Sept 1, 2023 7:19:54 GMT -5
Regarding your final points, I accept that there are questions to be raised over the third, although I'm not sure that they can't be answered with moral cetainty. (I have not done so, personally.)
However I struggle to see how the preface / consecration prayer as a whole does not specify the power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
Perhaps one could argue that, in the hands of non-Catholics distorting the meaning of the word "bishop" etc, over time words could come to mean something else and so violate your third point. But given that it was received in 1968 in the context of a stripped down version of the true Mass, rather than (say) 1970 in the context of the new Mass - and given that it was received without protest by the Catholic bishops, I think that this is a hard thing to argue about the rite itself, and about early ordinations in this rite, if used by serious Catholic bishops.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 1, 2023 10:52:23 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: I agree and thank you for the discussion. No, Paul VI's designation has no weight, unless he was pope, and you and I agree he wasn't, so of course we agree on that aspect. What I am saying is this: Paul VI, obviously being advised by the commission made up of the liturgical experts clearly believed this middle section was where the essential words of validity are to be found. The theologians who wrote the rite along with Paul VI must have so strongly believed this to be the case that the co-consecrators were only to say this one part of the form. Paul VI was clearly following the format used by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis as quoted above, indicating words that are essential in the form, which clearly implies that all words are not essential. Do we agree this far? I don't disagree, but wouldn't you also say that if a pope designates certain words as essential in the form, as Pius XII did, that we must trust his judgment on the matter, that it is in those words that all conditions of validity are to be found as described in Sacramentum Ordinis, as quoted above? I am also arguing that when the three bishops are praying for "governing spirit"to descend upon the man being consecrated, there is not a direct connection between the grace being prayed for and the power of order that unites with the matter. Do we agree or not agree that this middle prayer does not name the order to be received in and of itself, not yet looking at the other prayers? What if a layperson in an emergency baptism says while pouring the water three times slowly through the entire statement: Does all that verbiage between "you" in the first sentence and the invocation of the Trinity disconnect the direct connection between what is essential in the form? It seems that is similar to what you are arguing with the Paul VI rite. When the grace of the Holy Ghost is being prayed for, it is not at that moment connected to the power of order. Then is followed another prayer that is praying for the man to be a good bishop, beyond reproach, etc. Then the last paragraph, is the final prayer, in which is argued the order is mentioned, which you seem to be connecting to the middle prayer. Is that correct? Does this disconnect between the prayer for the grace of the Holy Ghost and supposed prayer for the power of order, which I will get into next, cause a potential problem that needs to be answered by Rome as with the disconnected baptismal formula above? The next point I am making is that I am arguing that there is an ambiguity in the wording "Grant by the power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood..." Above I argued that since this rite did not come from the Church, and this kind of wording is not used in Catholic usage, it is not for us to define it or presuppose anything about it. This last paragraph is, in my opinion, not clear and univocal in what is being asked for, and certainly it is unclear if the episcopal order is being prayed for to be given. Is this actually a prayer for the fullness of the power of order, or a prayer made to the "power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood." I do not see anywhere in the rite a specific and unambiguous prayer for the power of order to be given which is the episcopacy, using language acceptable to the Church as required for validity by Pius XII. Can you show me if you think otherwise and we can discuss? The essential words in the Roman Pontifical were: In these words, it is clear that the grace of the Holy Ghost is being prayed for along with the order being received, which is the fullness of thy ministry, which is the episcopacy.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 1, 2023 10:57:55 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: Weren't these the same bishops who also imposed the Novus Ordo with the mutilated consecration form? It seems they were disoriented or asleep on many issues going on. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they might have seen problems with it, but just relied on the legitimacy of Paul VI, and that being the case in their mind, just figured that it must be valid, and most likely this was the same case with the Novus Ordo.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Sept 1, 2023 12:47:24 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: Weren't these the same bishops who also imposed the Novus Ordo with the mutilated consecration form? It seems they were disoriented or asleep on many issues going on. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they might have seen problems with it, but just relied on the legitimacy of Paul VI, and that being the case in their mind, just figured that it must be valid, and most likely this was the same case with the Novus Ordo. Thanks for this, but please note that I am not arguing their approval or reception means that it is OK - I am saying that the argument that the word "bishop" means something else in the rite, as per the Anglicans, is hard to mount.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 1, 2023 13:47:55 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: Weren't these the same bishops who also imposed the Novus Ordo with the mutilated consecration form? It seems they were disoriented or asleep on many issues going on. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they might have seen problems with it, but just relied on the legitimacy of Paul VI, and that being the case in their mind, just figured that it must be valid, and most likely this was the same case with the Novus Ordo. Thanks for this, but please note that I am not arguing their approval or reception means that it is OK - I am saying that the argument that the word "bishop" means something else in the rite, as per the Anglicans, is hard to mount. I think it is possible that considering the newer theology of the priesthood, and the mass both explicit and implicit, that the ministry of a Roman rite bishop in the Conciliar sect is not the same as the ministry of a bishop of the Catholic Church, similar to the Anglican case but not identical. Is the fullness of the ministry identical between the bishops of the Latin rite in the 1970's to present, or has there been an essential change? I think it's arguable, anyway. The Greeks use the word, "bishop" and the Church accepts it because they continue to fulfill the ministry of ordaining men to offer the sacrifice and confect the other sacraments using approved Catholic rites, (although stolen). Do the Latin rite bishops believe that this is why they are ordaining men, or is to to serve the community as a presider? Their "Mass" certainly makes it hard to believe this is what is happening, considering that it is not clear and crisp on this, with ambiguity and almost everywhere there are practices in place either approved or tolerated by Rome which make the idea of a sacrificial offering seem to have no place in Catholic worship. This gets to a second related question: did the sect change beliefs as shown through its teachings, practices, or in what was tolerated as legitimate customs m regard to the nature of the Mass, what was really happening at the Mass, and what the role of a priest was at this mass? I think for starters, to see easy evidence that this belief had changed is to look at the practices in a video of the mass prior to Vatican II, and look at it after. Do outwards actions display belief, and since the new practices were just about universal in the Roman Rite, is it safe to believe that the belief had changed?
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Sept 4, 2023 10:16:53 GMT -5
Thank you, Pacelli, for this exchange. I'm not sure how much I have to add to this discussion, but I'll just parse this with my answers to questions and probably leave it at that. sdwright wrote: I agree and thank you for the discussion. No, Paul VI's designation has no weight, unless he was pope, and you and I agree he wasn't, so of course we agree on that aspect. What I am saying is this: Paul VI, obviously being advised by the commission made up of the liturgical experts clearly believed this middle section was where the essential words of validity are to be found. The theologians who wrote the rite along with Paul VI must have so strongly believed this to be the case that the co-consecrators were only to say this one part of the form. Paul VI was clearly following the format used by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis as quoted above, indicating words that are essential in the form, which clearly implies that all words are not essential. Do we agree this far? SDW: Agreed that P6 + advisers thought that the middle section was where the essential words were to be found. I don't disagree, but wouldn't you also say that if a pope designates certain words as essential in the form, as Pius XII did, that we must trust his judgment on the matter, that it is in those words that all conditions of validity are to be found as described in Sacramentum Ordinis, as quoted above? SDW: Yes, that holds for Pius XII. But it doesn't hold for a man that we don't believe to have been pope.I am also arguing that when the three bishops are praying for "governing spirit"to descend upon the man being consecrated, there is not a direct connection between the grace being prayed for and the power of order that unites with the matter. Do we agree or not agree that this middle prayer does not name the order to be received in and of itself, not yet looking at the other prayers? SDW: I'm happy to concede that the middle prayer does not sufficiently express the two components necessary, in this case the power of order (either the rank itself, or a specific power of that rank). I wouldn't die for that claim, although I do think it's correct and in any case I concede it for the sake of argument.What if a layperson in an emergency baptism says while pouring the water three times slowly through the entire statement: Does all that verbiage between "you" in the first sentence and the invocation of the Trinity disconnect the direct connection between what is essential in the form? It seems that is similar to what you are arguing with the Paul VI rite. SDW: That's an interesting example. Some points: 1. We know that sacramental forms *can* have words interpolated, as we saw with those of baptism and the consecration at Mass. Can this many words be interpolated? For baptism, it seems preposterous: but, as the English Bishops show in the Vindication, very many of the forms of holy orders used in other rites seem to be valid by virtue of words that have less necessary words interpolated in the form. This doesn't seem obviously impossible to me. When the grace of the Holy Ghost is being prayed for, it is not at that moment connected to the power of order. Then is followed another prayer that is praying for the man to be a good bishop, beyond reproach, etc. Then the last paragraph, is the final prayer, in which is argued the order is mentioned, which you seem to be connecting to the middle prayer. Is that correct? SDW: Elsewhere in this exchange, it's been suggested that I'm connecting three unconnected prayers. In fact, they are three paragraphs in one consecratory prayer. I understand that you have argued that they are not connected, but I do believe that the idea that they are connected is in possession.Does this disconnect between the prayer for the grace of the Holy Ghost and supposed prayer for the power of order, which I will get into next, cause a potential problem that needs to be answered by Rome as with the disconnected baptismal formula above? SDW: For reasons above, I don't think so, no. I don't find the idea convincing, personally, and so I don't think it rises to the level of a positive doubt (in my opinion).The next point I am making is that I am arguing that there is an ambiguity in the wording "Grant by the power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood..." Above I argued that since this rite did not come from the Church, and this kind of wording is not used in Catholic usage, it is not for us to define it or presuppose anything about it. This last paragraph is, in my opinion, not clear and univocal in what is being asked for, and certainly it is unclear if the episcopal order is being prayed for to be given. Is this actually a prayer for the fullness of the power of order, or a prayer made to the "power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood." I do not see anywhere in the rite a specific and unambiguous prayer for the power of order to be given which is the episcopacy, using language acceptable to the Church as required for validity by Pius XII. Can you show me if you think otherwise and we can discuss? SDW: Without taking a personal opinion on the matter, let's note that the English bishops, the following parts of the Coptic rite upon which this is in part based sufficiently did this:
Coptic (from the Vindication) Pour out the power of Thy ruling spirit [...] Thy servant . . . whom Thou hast chosen to be Bishop,
NREC: Pour out now upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, [...] Grant [...] whom you have chosen for the office of Bishop may shepherd your holy flock.
[They also italicise "constituting clergy, which does not appear in the NREC. I also note that, in spite of what you say about "The Spirit of the High Priesthood" does indeed appear to refer to the Holy Ghost, and was indeed in other texts, including the Apostolic Constitutions. I'm well aware of the arguments made about this text, but I raise it because I'm not sure it's right to say that this wording is not in Catholic usage. See: www.newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm]
The English bishops don't get to decide this matter, but they are witnesses to what was believed when they wrote, and to what they themselves believed. It has weight to some degree as what it is.The essential words in the Roman Pontifical were: In these words, it is clear that the grace of the Holy Ghost is being prayed for along with the order being received, which is the fullness of thy ministry, which is the episcopacy. SDW: And with that, I shall bow out. I don't think that we have reached any conclusions - although I do strongly think that the arguments typically advanced in relatively well-known polemics are wanting here, as they are on other topics. Many thanks for your time and engagement!
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Sept 4, 2023 11:01:59 GMT -5
Thank you, Pacelli, for this exchange. I'm not sure how much I have to add to this discussion, but I'll just parse this with my answers to questions and probably leave it at that. sdwright wrote: I agree and thank you for the discussion. No, Paul VI's designation has no weight, unless he was pope, and you and I agree he wasn't, so of course we agree on that aspect. What I am saying is this: Paul VI, obviously being advised by the commission made up of the liturgical experts clearly believed this middle section was where the essential words of validity are to be found. The theologians who wrote the rite along with Paul VI must have so strongly believed this to be the case that the co-consecrators were only to say this one part of the form. Paul VI was clearly following the format used by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis as quoted above, indicating words that are essential in the form, which clearly implies that all words are not essential. Do we agree this far? SDW: Agreed that P6 + advisers thought that the middle section was where the essential words were to be found. I don't disagree, but wouldn't you also say that if a pope designates certain words as essential in the form, as Pius XII did, that we must trust his judgment on the matter, that it is in those words that all conditions of validity are to be found as described in Sacramentum Ordinis, as quoted above? SDW: Yes, that holds for Pius XII. But it doesn't hold for a man that we don't believe to have been pope.I am also arguing that when the three bishops are praying for "governing spirit"to descend upon the man being consecrated, there is not a direct connection between the grace being prayed for and the power of order that unites with the matter. Do we agree or not agree that this middle prayer does not name the order to be received in and of itself, not yet looking at the other prayers? SDW: I'm happy to concede that the middle prayer does not sufficiently express the two components necessary, in this case the power of order (either the rank itself, or a specific power of that rank). I wouldn't die for that claim, although I do think it's correct and in any case I concede it for the sake of argument.What if a layperson in an emergency baptism says while pouring the water three times slowly through the entire statement: Does all that verbiage between "you" in the first sentence and the invocation of the Trinity disconnect the direct connection between what is essential in the form? It seems that is similar to what you are arguing with the Paul VI rite. SDW: That's an interesting example. Some points: 1. We know that sacramental forms *can* have words interpolated, as we saw with those of baptism and the consecration at Mass. Can this many words be interpolated? For baptism, it seems preposterous: but, as the English Bishops show in the Vindication, very many of the forms of holy orders used in other rites seem to be valid by virtue of words that have less necessary words interpolated in the form. This doesn't seem obviously impossible to me. When the grace of the Holy Ghost is being prayed for, it is not at that moment connected to the power of order. Then is followed another prayer that is praying for the man to be a good bishop, beyond reproach, etc. Then the last paragraph, is the final prayer, in which is argued the order is mentioned, which you seem to be connecting to the middle prayer. Is that correct? SDW: Elsewhere in this exchange, it's been suggested that I'm connecting three unconnected prayers. In fact, they are three paragraphs in one consecratory prayer. I understand that you have argued that they are not connected, but I do believe that the idea that they are connected is in possession.Does this disconnect between the prayer for the grace of the Holy Ghost and supposed prayer for the power of order, which I will get into next, cause a potential problem that needs to be answered by Rome as with the disconnected baptismal formula above? SDW: For reasons above, I don't think so, no. I don't find the idea convincing, personally, and so I don't think it rises to the level of a positive doubt (in my opinion).The next point I am making is that I am arguing that there is an ambiguity in the wording "Grant by the power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood..." Above I argued that since this rite did not come from the Church, and this kind of wording is not used in Catholic usage, it is not for us to define it or presuppose anything about it. This last paragraph is, in my opinion, not clear and univocal in what is being asked for, and certainly it is unclear if the episcopal order is being prayed for to be given. Is this actually a prayer for the fullness of the power of order, or a prayer made to the "power of the Spirit of the High Priesthood." I do not see anywhere in the rite a specific and unambiguous prayer for the power of order to be given which is the episcopacy, using language acceptable to the Church as required for validity by Pius XII. Can you show me if you think otherwise and we can discuss? SDW: Without taking a personal opinion on the matter, let's note that the English bishops, the following parts of the Coptic rite upon which this is in part based sufficiently did this:
Coptic (from the Vindication) Pour out the power of Thy ruling spirit [...] Thy servant . . . whom Thou hast chosen to be Bishop,
NREC: Pour out now upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, [...] Grant [...] whom you have chosen for the office of Bishop may shepherd your holy flock.
[They also italicise "constituting clergy, which does not appear in the NREC. I also note that, in spite of what you say about "The Spirit of the High Priesthood" does indeed appear to refer to the Holy Ghost, and was indeed in other texts, including the Apostolic Constitutions. I'm well aware of the arguments made about this text, but I raise it because I'm not sure it's right to say that this wording is not in Catholic usage. See: www.newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm]
The English bishops don't get to decide this matter, but they are witnesses to what was believed when they wrote, and to what they themselves believed. It has weight to some degree as what it is.The essential words in the Roman Pontifical were: In these words, it is clear that the grace of the Holy Ghost is being prayed for along with the order being received, which is the fullness of thy ministry, which is the episcopacy. SDW: And with that, I shall bow out. I don't think that we have reached any conclusions - although I do strongly think that the arguments typically advanced in relatively well-known polemics are wanting here, as they are on other topics. Many thanks for your time and engagement! This is interesting , I do not have much to contribute , it is a pity that you do not continue the discussion , it is very illustrative , can I ask SDRight what are those other topics that you mention ?
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Sept 4, 2023 13:41:14 GMT -5
Well @didymus, I don't rule out adding anything more, but I don't have much more clear things to say here (not that all this leads anywhere clear either) and I don't want to try the good Pacelli's patience by having us repeat our points! Regarding the other points in question, I think Pacelli would agree that the polemics on the Unacum and Holy Week are two good examples.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 8:36:21 GMT -5
Well @didymus, I don't rule out adding anything more, but I don't have much more clear things to say here (not that all this leads anywhere clear either) and I don't want to try the good Pacelli 's patience by having us repeat our points! Regarding the other points in question, I think Pacelli would agree that the polemics on the Unacum and Holy Week are two good examples. Hello sdwright , You are not trying my patience, and I hope I am not trying yours. I think you and I have the same goal which is the truth. You and I also share the same goal of neither proving the rite either valid or invalid, which is something that really should fall under the competence of theologians anyway. I believe there is a doubt in the rite, and that doubt, for me, is strong enough to exercise my right as a Catholic and bring the matter Rome, and request a judgment from the Pope. Until that doubt is resolved by the authority, I have chosen to refrain from ever requesting the sacraments from such priests, even when the Catholic rites are used by these men, (for example at certain SSPX chapels.) This brings up a related matter anyway, is it wise anyway to request the sacraments from men who are ordained using a novel rite, that was created and developed outside the Church, and has never been examined and ruled upon by Rome as to whether it is valid? I can't think of a single example in Church history in which this was done, so even on those grounds, and I think a Catholic is safe to say, "since the Church did not give me this, I do not wish to receive it." When I began reading and studying the Anglican case, my initial thoughts were that the Catholic position of invalidity was going to crush the Anglican arguments. I couldn't have been more wrong, they put up very good arguments in favor of validity, and even reputable Catholic theologians thought it was valid, but, despite this, the Pope ruled the other way. Prior to Pope Leo's ruling, when Anglican priests converted, they were conditionally ordained, so I think there was certainly enough concern that this novel rite created by unauthorized men, outside the Church, should be treated with extreme caution, as there was a reasonable doubt, even prior to it being settled by Rome, and conditional ordination given. I think you and I would both agree that if a rite was initiated outside the Catholic Church, that was different, but with some similarities to obscure Catholic rites, and we do believe this to be the case, as we believe Paul VI was not a Pope, and as this rite has never been judged as to validity, then there is not any safety given to us by the Church as to its validity. One can opine either way, with persons such as Fr. Cekada who on his own, publicly declared the rite null and void, to Fr. Pierre Marie who is certain it is valid, but none of these opinions are authoritative. The fact is that this rite, despite some similarities to Catholic rites, has never been used in Church history, has not been thoroughly examined by Catholic theologians, and we, as of yet, have no ruling on it from Rome, so all we have are own private judgments about it. Anyway, I know you think it best to end the discussion, and I'm fine with that. I'll make a few comments on your post, as I have a few last comments, and we can leave it there, unless you wish anything more to say.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 8:59:19 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: Weren't these the same bishops who also imposed the Novus Ordo with the mutilated consecration form? It seems they were disoriented or asleep on many issues going on. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they might have seen problems with it, but just relied on the legitimacy of Paul VI, and that being the case in their mind, just figured that it must be valid, and most likely this was the same case with the Novus Ordo. Thanks for this, but please note that I am not arguing their approval or reception means that it is OK - I am saying that the argument that the word "bishop" means something else in the rite, as per the Anglicans, is hard to mount. I forgot before to reply to this, point taken. I am not certain however, that the Conciliar sect uses terms in accordance with meanings excepted by the Church, so I think it is certainly an open point, and one which must be resolved by Rome, on not only sacramental usages of terms, but doctrinal and moral as well. The innovators were successful, in my opinion, by successfully using this tactic of using terms with new meanings, and letting the duped Catholic episcopate, clergy, and laity, to keep thinking things meant one thing, but they knew it meant another. Over time, these meanings have been getting more and more exposed for viewing, so I think if you want to look at these rites, as you also look at the doctrine of Vatican II, one must not look at it in a vacuum, but must take all the context of what happened after into consideration, as the innovators at the time, hid their direct intentions, but over time, it has been getting clearer and clearer. It's not in any way to praise the Anglicans, but they were very clear in what they meant, so at least they were being honest in the terrible things they were doing, and any Catholic that followed them knew exactly where they were being led, and it has not been that way with the Conciliar church (sect). In my opinion, nothing should be presumed or assumed about anything they say, and all terms must be nailed down, so all can be certain on what is being meant.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 10:06:47 GMT -5
sdwright wrote commenting on Paul VI's designating the essential words in his new ordination rites: We both agree on the point as to any authority that Paul VI had, and therefore, since he lacked authority, no one has any obligation to believe him on this. The point I am trying to draw out, perhaps not successfully, due to not stating it clearly enough, is that the argument does not rely on Paul VI's authority, but on what the writers of the rite must have clearly believed about where the essential words are found. Paul VI was not a theologian, so he was clearly relying on what the experts who made up the commission were telling him, and I am fairly sure this was written for him. I am not arguing that these men are correct, but even though we disagree with them as to whether the rite should be changed, this specific matter was being dealt with using pre-Vatican II principles, the same process in fact as used by Pius XII, of naming the essential words in the form, and by that separating what was essential from not essential. The reason why I think, in this case, this statement has some soundness to it, is because it had a very practical problem if they were wrong. Every episcopal consecration under Paul VI's new law ordered the co-consecrations to remain silent except with the words of the essential words of the form designated by Paul VI. These essentials words would have been decisive on whether the co-consecrators were in fact co-consecrators, and not merely assistants. I would also say as a point of argument that these men despite their horrible deeds being done by them, weren't stupid, and they were highly trained in these matters, and clearly must have made the judgment that the essential words were all encompassed in the words designated by Paul VI, thereby at least implicitly saying that the validity was certainly to be found there, but not necessarily found elsewhere. This argument is not a deal breaker, but it is a piece of evidence, in my opinion. It is not my only argument, but as in a court case, all arguments that are related must be included. For example, in a court case, a man meeting the description of the accused is seen right near the scene of the crime, and several persons testify to that. Is that enough on its own? No, but this but sworn testimony in addition to other evidence makes a more complete case to give the jury certitude that the man is guilty. This piece of evidence is akin to that, it doesn't settle it but it helps in the bigger picture of the case as a whole. If the words for validity are to be found elsewhere, and not what Paul VI, said, then it clearly shows that these men in creating this new rite cannot be relied upon to give us a certainty valid rite as they botched the words they themselves labeled as "essential" for validity. It also helps to answer this specific question: If Paul VI's and his experts on the commission believed that the essential part of the form is found in these words, and as this rite was their creation, why can't I just believe what they are saying as what to look for in regards to validity, and as I have a doubt about these words fulfilling all that is necessary for validity, leave it at that? Why do I have to make the case for them, and look outside these words for validity, when Paul VI, clearly working with the commission, already in effect made their case by telling the Catholic world what words were essential for validity? Another way of saying this is: if men outside the Church give a new rite for Catholics to use, and then tell Catholics what the essential words are for validity, but in the same words they told us of what makes the rite valid are words that one can make a reasonable judgment do not fulfill what is necessary as understood from pre-Vatican II teaching on what constitutes validity, then I believe that this is a part of the reason why this rite must be held in suspicion as to its validity, and when pieced with other evidence it leads to a serious doubt about it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 10:36:14 GMT -5
sdwright wrote, I agree, but the difference is that words interpolated in approved Catholic rites are not the same as words that form a creation of a novel rite created by unauthorized men. If the Church looks at these added words and determines that they along with the rite is valid, then there is no problem. I realize the fictional baptismal form above, is a bit extreme, but it fits into the larger matter as to principle, but not to its extremity, which is the point I am drawing out. If a private person creates a new form, as in the example, and even though it is similar to an approved form, but not the same, and puts all sorts of extra wording into it, does that create a matter for a dubia to be resolved by Rome? Have you ever looked at all the strange cases that Rome did look at on all sorts of matters that Catholics were having doubts on? There were a lot over the centuries, not just on orders, but the other sacraments as well, and Rome did authoritatively answer them. This new form of Paul VI is very odd, and is different from every approved form ever used in Church history, and in my opinion, all of the words used in this rite, not found in the approved Catholic rite, and also words not included in this rite, but found in the similar rites, should all be a matter of the examination by Rome. This gets to my last post a bit: if the essential words labeled by Paul VI are not sufficient for validity, and these other words of the form, many of which are not the same as found in the approved Catholic rites, are what are in fact are truly the essential words, then they must be looked at very carefully as to whether they do in fact fulfill the conditions for validity, especially in light of the fact that the rite has not been determined to be valid by the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 11:07:42 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: There is a clear difference between the three prayers as only the middle prayer is said by the co-consecrators, and the others are not. Also, the first prayer does not in any sense pray for grace of the Holy Ghost, or the power of order to be received, which is why in a previous post, at least regarding validity, I was saying that the second and third prayers, are the crucial ones to look at. In other rites, there is a natural flow in the wording and there is a direct connection of the essential words of the form, the prayer asking for power of order and the grace of the Holy Ghost. This rite, with the grace of the Holy Spirit being prayed for in the second prayer, and even presuming that the essential wording signifying the order received are found in the final paragraph, is disjointed, and odd if that's how the essential words are meant to be understood. I am not saying that this would make it invalid, but it seems odd to not have these two conditions united into one single prayer. With that said, I am not convinced that the order being prayed for is found in the final paragraph, if we are to use the standard of Pius XII in which he teaches that it must be univocally stated. I think there is an ambiguity found in the last paragraph that creates a doubt as to the order being prayed for, if that is indeed what is needed for the essential words as to be connected to the prayer for the Holy Ghost in the second prayer. I did not yet get into why I think that.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 11:44:42 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: I would like to clarify on that matter of the "Spirit of the High Priesthood." It was my sloppiness to write it the way I did, and of course it is found in the rite of Hippolytus. What I had in mind was that the term cannot be found in the Western Church since the early centuries, and therefore it is not an approved term in context of the last 1700 years or so, and therefore its meaning may not be the same thing. Why resurrect such an obscure term anyway? It's seems odd to do so, when theology has developed so much, and so many clear and precise terms have been used with clear definitions and meanings, and then for the commission to dig up some obscure terms, as this rite did is very odd, especially considering how this sect has used ambiguity on all sorts of other matters. I am not convinced that the usage of this obscure term in Paul VI's rite can be equated with the rite of Hippolytus, or anywhere else it is found, as certainly meaning the Holy Ghost. Also, this is not even getting into whether the rite of Hippolytus that we have today can even be relied on as to being certain as to the what was included in the rite in ancient times. There is much debate over this very point and Dom Botte's reconstruction of the rite is certainly not the final word on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2023 12:55:12 GMT -5
sdwright wrote: I would make the following observations: The prayer for in the NREC quoted above "...whom thou has chosen as bishop," is not part of the same prayer as the section before it, "Pour out now..." The full prayer says: The prayer is not asking God for the order to be given, the prayer is clearly just saying what is presumed as a fact, that God chose the man for the office of bishop, and is only requesting that he be a moral bishop. The prayer does not ask God to make him a bishop, by asking for the order to be received. It is also asking that the man serves God well with the ministry of the High Priesthood, but does not ask God clearly for this ministry by granting him the order to be prayed for. Contrast this with the Coptic rite: In the Coptic, we see that the grace being requested is being asked for explicitly, "grant this..." as boldfaced above. The prayer of NREC above does not do this, it is not a specific prayer for the order being requested. Anyway, since this may be our last post discussing this, and as I alluded to this earlier, I believe it would be rude to not explain myself on the last matter yet to be discussed. Do you notice how in the NREC, there are three powers of order being prayed for: (1) he may have the power to forgive sins according to your command, (2) assign offices according to your decree, (3) and loose every bond according to the power given by you to the Apostles. The first, forgiving sins, is of course a power of a bishop, but is also found among priests, and the second and third are powers of jurisdiction, and are not directly from the order received. In the NREC it does not include ordaining priests, the crucial power of the ministry of a bishop in regard to his orders, not his jurisdiction. As is shown above, that power is explicitly named in the Coptic, and is named even in the rite of Hippolytus: "to confer orders according to your bidding." See Bradshaw, p. 107, linked HERE
In a rite that is supposed to based on the rite of Hippolytus and also the Coptic rite, the critical function of the order received that is specific to bishops rather than priests is strangely omitted. The other powers are not part of the order, but are part of the jurisdiction of a bishop, meaning that not all bishops have these powers as they are consecrated as bishop and are not able to then use these powers, such as auxiliary bishops, and those assigned to Titular Sees. The one power that all bishops have inherent in the order received is to ordain, and that one specific power is not requested in this rite. Even in the two powers of jurisdiction mentioned, these powers are not exclusive to bishops, but may be found among priests as well. A priest who is an apostolic administrator of a diocese can exercise these same powers of jurisdiction, assigning offices and loosening ecclesiastical bonds, even though he is not a bishop. From the CE article "Administrator": To sum up, the one power that makes it certain that the man being prayed for to be given the power exclusive to a bishop and not found among priests is the power of ordaining men for the priesthood, and that is not prayed for in the Paul VI rite, and is specifically prayed or at least presupposed, in the approved Catholic rites. This along with other issues, creates an ambiguity in the rite, as the order being prayed for is not exclusive to a bishop. Since the order being prayed for, the fullness of the ministry, is not unambiguously named in the middle prayer, and again in the final prayer, it is not unambiguously being prayed for, I believe a doubt exists. This doubt is amplified by the fact that the specific power named, found only in the fullness of the priesthood, is strangely omitted. I rely on the teaching of Pope Pius XII that for validity: I will say as a last point, that the power of ordaining may be presupposed in an approved Catholic rite, even if not explicitly named, but as this rite is not an approved Catholic rite, we must not presuppose anything about it, or assume that it is implied. A specific prayer for the power of episcopal order, is simply not unambiguously prayed for in the rite, even though it is ambiguously alluded to. With that I leave off, and whether you wish to continue this or not, I wish you well, and thank you for probing me on this. Your points have only assisted me to more clearly explain what is in my mind that I must transfer to the written word.
|
|