The Form of Episcopal Consecration & the Novel Paul VI Rite
Jul 10, 2023 8:34:52 GMT -5
Caillin, wenceslav, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Jul 10, 2023 8:34:52 GMT -5
With recent posts demonstrating that the novel episcopal consecration rite of Paul VI is not identical to an eastern rite, and the rite of Hippolytus is not reliable, the next area to cover is the essential problem with this rite. Prior to doing this, I would make a few points' which is the purpose of this post.
1. The fact that an Eastern rite does not identically match the Paul VI rite is not proof that the novel rite of Paul VI is invalid.
2. If, however, the Eastern rite used did identically match the Paul VI rite, the rite would not have been novel at all, as it would have been a Traditional rite used and approved by the Catholic Church and certainly valid.
3. Since the rite does not identically match a previously used rite, the rite is novel, by definition, and its validity relies on whether the correct matter and form are used.
4. There is no dispute on the matter used, the laying on of hands, so there will be no discussion on that.
5. The key problem with the novel rite is that it changed the form, and since this form has never been used in Church history, it must be examined to see if all criteria for validity are present.
6. Fortunately, for us, (but unfortunately for the Anglicans who have been in both schism and heresy for hundreds of years), the 400 plus year old controversy of the Anglican orders has left us with massive amounts of writing on both sides, those who defend the Anglican rites as to validity, and this included Catholics, those who argued for invalidity, and a third group that believed in the possible validity, considering the novel rites as doubtful.
7. There is no set form for Holy Orders as there is for Baptism and for some other sacraments. Our Lord, when he gave the Church this sacrament, did not give a set form. This does not mean, however, that there is no correct form as to what essentials must be included in the words used as to validity, and any words may suffice, so long as the hands are placed by a bishop on the candidate.
8. This has been a very long dispute in Church history, even among Catholic theologians, as to what the form exactly must include for holy orders.
9. The Anglicans were not incompetent theologians and put forth many good arguments in favor of validity. They appealed to the Eastern rites, showing similarities to the Edwardine rite, and appealed to the rite of Hippolytus, and even argued that the Roman Pontifical itself would have failed the test of validity using the standard set by Catholic theologians. Their arguments are eerily similar, by the way, to the defenders of the novel rite of Paul VI. Despite having many good arguments that appeared to favor validity, Pope Leo XIII, in Apostolicae Curae, declared the orders of the Anglicans to be invalid.
10. In addition to the reasons of Pope Leo XIII for making this declaration, which by the way, was argued as to the defect of the form, there is also the teaching of Pope Pius XII, who in Sacramentum Ordinis taught the Church what constituted validity as to the form. The fact that he settled the correct form for the Roman rite is inconsequential to this discussion, the key to what Pius XII did is that he taught what constitutes a valid form, what is the common link that must be found in both the Latin Church and the Eastern rites and even the "orthodox" rites that are essential to validity.
In my coming posts, I will be presenting the teaching of Catholic theologians that explained Apostolicae Curae and why the Anglican arguments in the end failed and the ordination rites of King Edward, including his novel episcopal consecration rite of bishops, were declared invalid. I will then connect those arguments to the novel rite of Paul VI. I will then show that the novel Paul VI rite of episcopal consecration does not with certainty meet the criteria set by Pope Pius XII for establishing validity.
One last point, my writing on this is not to argue that the novel rite of Paul VI is invalid, only to show a lower standard, that it might be invalid, and is therefore doubtful. It is only for Rome, not any of us, to judge the rite authoritatively, and settle this, but in the meanwhile, prior to the judgment of Rome, we must protect our souls, and must only seek sacraments that are certainly valid. It is my contention, and I will hope to demonstrate this in the coming days, that the novel episcopal consecration rite of Paul VI is doubtful as to validity and Catholics should not request the sacraments from these bishops, or priests ordained by them, until Rome settles this one way or the other.
1. The fact that an Eastern rite does not identically match the Paul VI rite is not proof that the novel rite of Paul VI is invalid.
2. If, however, the Eastern rite used did identically match the Paul VI rite, the rite would not have been novel at all, as it would have been a Traditional rite used and approved by the Catholic Church and certainly valid.
3. Since the rite does not identically match a previously used rite, the rite is novel, by definition, and its validity relies on whether the correct matter and form are used.
4. There is no dispute on the matter used, the laying on of hands, so there will be no discussion on that.
5. The key problem with the novel rite is that it changed the form, and since this form has never been used in Church history, it must be examined to see if all criteria for validity are present.
6. Fortunately, for us, (but unfortunately for the Anglicans who have been in both schism and heresy for hundreds of years), the 400 plus year old controversy of the Anglican orders has left us with massive amounts of writing on both sides, those who defend the Anglican rites as to validity, and this included Catholics, those who argued for invalidity, and a third group that believed in the possible validity, considering the novel rites as doubtful.
7. There is no set form for Holy Orders as there is for Baptism and for some other sacraments. Our Lord, when he gave the Church this sacrament, did not give a set form. This does not mean, however, that there is no correct form as to what essentials must be included in the words used as to validity, and any words may suffice, so long as the hands are placed by a bishop on the candidate.
8. This has been a very long dispute in Church history, even among Catholic theologians, as to what the form exactly must include for holy orders.
9. The Anglicans were not incompetent theologians and put forth many good arguments in favor of validity. They appealed to the Eastern rites, showing similarities to the Edwardine rite, and appealed to the rite of Hippolytus, and even argued that the Roman Pontifical itself would have failed the test of validity using the standard set by Catholic theologians. Their arguments are eerily similar, by the way, to the defenders of the novel rite of Paul VI. Despite having many good arguments that appeared to favor validity, Pope Leo XIII, in Apostolicae Curae, declared the orders of the Anglicans to be invalid.
10. In addition to the reasons of Pope Leo XIII for making this declaration, which by the way, was argued as to the defect of the form, there is also the teaching of Pope Pius XII, who in Sacramentum Ordinis taught the Church what constituted validity as to the form. The fact that he settled the correct form for the Roman rite is inconsequential to this discussion, the key to what Pius XII did is that he taught what constitutes a valid form, what is the common link that must be found in both the Latin Church and the Eastern rites and even the "orthodox" rites that are essential to validity.
In my coming posts, I will be presenting the teaching of Catholic theologians that explained Apostolicae Curae and why the Anglican arguments in the end failed and the ordination rites of King Edward, including his novel episcopal consecration rite of bishops, were declared invalid. I will then connect those arguments to the novel rite of Paul VI. I will then show that the novel Paul VI rite of episcopal consecration does not with certainty meet the criteria set by Pope Pius XII for establishing validity.
One last point, my writing on this is not to argue that the novel rite of Paul VI is invalid, only to show a lower standard, that it might be invalid, and is therefore doubtful. It is only for Rome, not any of us, to judge the rite authoritatively, and settle this, but in the meanwhile, prior to the judgment of Rome, we must protect our souls, and must only seek sacraments that are certainly valid. It is my contention, and I will hope to demonstrate this in the coming days, that the novel episcopal consecration rite of Paul VI is doubtful as to validity and Catholics should not request the sacraments from these bishops, or priests ordained by them, until Rome settles this one way or the other.