|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 18, 2024 7:21:44 GMT -5
A recent book has been published putting forth a case as to the validity of the novel 1968 consecration rite of bishops as approved by Paul VI, titled Mémoire en faveur de la validité du nouveau Rite de la Consécration épiscopale promulgué en 1968 par Paul VI, Abbé Olivier Rioult, 2023. The book in English is titled IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW RITE OF EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION PROMULGATED IN 1968 BY PAUL VI. I have been asked by several Catholics to comment on this book, and I am now ready to do so I thank Fr. Rioult for putting forth his study which in my opinion only assists in helping Catholics to form the conclusion of doubt on the validity of the rite, when all principles are taken into consideration which I will get to in my posts. I realize that he wouldn't agree with that assessment, but, in my opinion, there are additional considerations not found in the book that are needed to get to the truth of this matter. I also thank forum member Didymus for getting us the English translation of the book. I ask all on here that want to post comments to place them in the thread dedicated to discussing this, and leave this thread intact as it will have all of my comments on the book, placed one by one here, based on my reading of the book and my notes. Feel free to start additional threads as needed for specific topics in this regard as well. That will help to get an easier flow to all of this, as this is a big matter and highly complex, and it needs to be done orderly. The thread is found here: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2641/abbe-olivier-rioult-episcopal-consecration
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 18, 2024 12:56:01 GMT -5
(There is no page numbering in the English translation, so I will identify the chapter I am quoting from so the reader can find it.)
Fr. Rioult wrote in the preface:
I can't speak as to the work of Rore Sandtifica, as I am not able to read French, but I agree that the work of Fr. Cekada and Dr. Coomaraswamy have not proven invalidity. I contend that proving invalidity is too high of a bar anyway, and is not necessary as to forming moral certainty in regards to the rite as to whether there is a doubt or not.
Practically speaking there is little difference between a doubtful rite and an invalid rite, as both must be avoided by Catholics, and one key difference is that a conditional rite must be used as opposed to a complete ordination, as far as ordination rites go. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is in making a judgment on this rite. If one is going to argue invalidity, one must prove that as a fact, and that is a very difficult task in this case, as the rite has obvious similarities to approved Catholic rites.
If one is only arguing that there is a doubt that must be resolved by the Holy See, the bar drops considerably. One does not have to prove invalidity, he must only demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the rite is invalid, and then need a judgment from Rome to resolve those doubts. There is a process in place for this exact situation, and it is known as presenting a dubia, to which Rome judges the matter and answers the questioner. During the Anglican schism, as novel ordination rites were used, the practice of the Church was to conditionally ordain Anglican priests who converted.
The framing of this debate, between validly and invalidity is the problem, in my opinion. Tracts were written arguing invalidity and even one that arrogantly declared the new rite invalid, using the words of the pope, and then on the other side, defenders of the rite worked to debunk those arguing invalidity. I believe both sides miss the point as to what Catholics need to do in judging how to react this rite and how to practically act towards it, which I will elaborate more on below.
In our case, for Catholics who have moral certainty that Paul VI was not a pope, we may then judge that the rites promulgated by him are not protected as far as validity by the Church, as a non-pope has no authority in the Church. Once that key factor is removed and we realize we are on our own in judging this rite prior to Rome judging it, we may develop the following conclusions:
1. We are not obliged to receive and accept the rites used by a sect that Rome has not approved. There seems to be some confusion on this key point in much of the analysis on this topic. If a group forms a sect, and that sect begins to innovate the sacramental rites of the Church, making significant changes to the rite, and these rites have not yet been judged by Rome, then Catholics have absolutely no obligation to receive these rites. This fact alone, in my opinion, must be digested before any other point is considered.
2. These rites do not identically match any approved Catholic rites, in the Latin Church or in any eastern rite. I do concede that there are strong similarities to the Coptic rite, but it is far from identical. This, by definition, means these are novel rites and cannot just be automatically accepted.
3. There is no doubt that the new sect had introduced new doctrine, which was made clear on many matters. With new doctrine, comes new understandings of terms, and with new terms, either not used by the Church previously or using approved terms, but not certainly in a sense used by the Church, or ambiguous enough that it may mean different things, then Catholics need authoritative clarification from Rome on this, and must not presume that the terms mean the same thing as the sense used by the Church. When terms such as these are used in sacramental rites, that alone is a strong enough problem to create a doubt that must be presented to Rome, by presenting a dubia.
4. The novel 1968 rite reintroduced terms not commonly used by the Church in a very long time, and there is no evidence that these ancient terms mean the same thing in the usage used by the sect as they did to the ancient Catholics. Only the Church can determine if these terms used by the sect have the same sense as used by the ancient Church. A sect that alters the received and approved rites of the Church must not be presumed to be using terms in the same sense and by that the same signification as that used by the Church.
As the preface of the book frames this debate between validity and invalidity, and the author states that neither side has convinced him, I say, "I agree, but it doesn't matter, as the entire debate has focused on the wrong question from the start."
More soon...
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Jan 19, 2024 1:07:33 GMT -5
Excellent start, I'm looking forward to the rest 😎
|
|