Anglican orders

[Xavier]

Anglican attempts, certainly invalid. The new rite, although not ideal, and not coming from Mother Church in Her perfect freedom, certainly valid.

I wrote an article critiquing Fr. Cekada's claim of doubtfulness (just like some people say God's existence or the Resurrection is "doubtful" because they doubt it; not at all - it is objectively certain by clear criteria. One's subjective doubts on those must be cleared up by prayer and study), in brief: is it doubtful that the Apostles were Bishops? No. No. No

It borders on the patently ridiculous to say the ancient rite in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus is invalid. If so, the Coptic and West Syrian rites are invalid as well. And even with Fr. Cekada's exaggerated criteria, the validity remains. Just see the number of allusions to the specific power of the episcopacy/high priesthood/shepherds of the flock/bishops. Fr. Cekada's objection clearly fails here.

"Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday. While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in silence. All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit. Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is [to be] ordained bishop, and shall pray as follows, saying:

'God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen. Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of Thy Principal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen'." (The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hyppolitus).

Fr. Cekada's claim is that the specific power of episcopal authority is not mentioned here. Unfortunately, that seems plainly erroneous.

1. The rite asks for the Spirit given by Christ to His holy Apostles. Will any one whomsoever venture to doubt that the Apostles were Bishops? Incredible! If not, the specific order is mentioned.

2. Mention is also made of high priesthood [summus sacerdos] which is just another term sacred Tradition, the Fathers and ancient liturgies use for the episcopacy. By analogy with the three grades of order that existed in ancient Israel, the deacons are levites, simple priests are priests and bishops are high priests. This analogy is pointed out often by the Church Fathers. It is clear in the rite above that the specific grace of the Spirit of the High Priesthood or the Episcopal Authority given to the Apostles is being conferred. It is not doubtful that high priesthood is univocal. Simple priests are not high priests. Therefore, the rite is valid.

3. Finally, Our Lord Jesus is Himself the Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the flock. The Father annointed and consecrated Him as such. The Lord said He gives to the Apostles the authority His Father gave Him. In the rite above, though the specific mention of the Spirit given to the Apostles should by itself settle the matter that this is a clear reference to episcopal power, the portion "thy royal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles" only renders it even more certain, as Jesus certainly was the great High Priest, just as His Apostles were certainly Bishops. Both are not doubtful at all.

So, the allegation that there is no specific mention of the episcopacy here seems wrong. Fr. Cekada's thesis stands or falls on that point.

[St.Justin]

Pope Leo also bases his decision on the historic practice of the Church; even after the 1662 modifications; to consider Anglican Orders invalid and to "absolutely ordain", not conditionally re-ordain those Anglican clergymen who applied for ordination as Catholic priest.
Canon Escourt one of the the foremost experts on this issue, was quoted by Michael Davies in his book: "The Order of Melchisedech" as stating that Anglican Ordinal was so in-apt for the conferring of orders, that even a Catholic bishop could not validly consecrate a bishop or ordain a priest using the ordinal.

Why would the Anglicans have change their Rite? Were they just playing word games, for what reason? Or where they attempting to bring it in line with what Rome asked them to do? If the latter than why would Rome accuse them of not using the words in the proper meaning of the words? The words are there that Rome asked for so why does Rome insist that they are invalid? Makes no sense to me.

Michael I understand and have read everything you have posted. I just don't agree that the Anglican rite as it now exist is invalid ( I do accept the Church's position on this but still think for argument sake they are incorrect, as to the Rite). I also believe that the Anglicans do not have valid orders except where the Old Catholics have muddied the waters but not because of the Rite but because that by the time the Rite was corrected there were no valid Priest or Bishops to administer them. Even Cardinal Basil Hume OSB disagreed but followed the Church's position.

[St.Justin]

Anglican attempts, certainly invalid. The new rite, although not ideal, and not coming from Mother Church in Her perfect freedom, certainly valid.

I wrote an article critiquing Fr. Cekada's claim of doubtfulness (just like some people say God's existence or the Resurrection is "doubtful" because they doubt it; not at all - it is objectively certain by clear criteria. One's subjective doubts on those must be cleared up by prayer and study), in brief: is it doubtful that the Apostles were Bishops? No. No. No

It borders on the patently ridiculous to say the ancient rite in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus is invalid. If so, the Coptic and West Syrian rites are invalid as well. And even with Fr. Cekada's exaggerated criteria, the validity remains. Just see the number of allusions to the specific power of the episcopacy/high priesthood/shepherds of the flock/bishops. Fr. Cekada's objection clearly fails here.

"Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday. While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in silence. All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit. Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is [to be] ordained bishop, and shall pray as follows, saying:

'God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham. And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen. Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of Thy Principal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. Thou who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet savour. Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen'." (The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hyppolitus).

Fr. Cekada's claim is that the specific power of episcopal authority is not mentioned here. Unfortunately, that seems plainly erroneous.

1. The rite asks for the Spirit given by Christ to His holy Apostles. Will any one whomsoever venture to doubt that the Apostles were Bishops? Incredible! If not, the specific order is mentioned.

2. Mention is also made of high priesthood [summus sacerdos] which is just another term sacred Tradition, the Fathers and ancient liturgies use for the episcopacy. By analogy with the three grades of order that existed in ancient Israel, the deacons are levites, simple priests are priests and bishops are high priests. This analogy is pointed out often by the Church Fathers. It is clear in the rite above that the specific grace of the Spirit of the High Priesthood or the Episcopal Authority given to the Apostles is being conferred. It is not doubtful that high priesthood is univocal. Simple priests are not high priests. Therefore, the rite is valid.

3. Finally, Our Lord Jesus is Himself the Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the flock. The Father annointed and consecrated Him as such. The Lord said He gives to the Apostles the authority His Father gave Him. In the rite above, though the specific mention of the Spirit given to the Apostles should by itself settle the matter that this is a clear reference to episcopal power, the portion "thy royal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles" only renders it even more certain, as Jesus certainly was the great High Priest, just as His Apostles were certainly Bishops. Both are not doubtful at all.

So, the allegation that there is no specific mention of the episcopacy here seems wrong. Fr. Cekada's thesis stands or falls on that point.

If the Anglican Rite is invalid then the NO is invalid for the same reasons.

[Michael Wilson]

Xavier stated:

It borders on the patently ridiculous to say the ancient rite in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus is invalid. If so, the Coptic and West Syrian rites are invalid as well. And even with Fr. Cekada's exaggerated criteria, the validity remains. Just see the number of allusions to the specific power of the episcopacy/high priesthood/shepherds of the flock/bishops. Fr. Cekada's objection clearly fails here.

The so called "Tradition of St. Hippolytus":
1st. Objection, "Uncertain Origin": is uncertain as to its origin; but most experts do not believe it comes from St. Hippolytus and may even proceed from non-Catholic heretical groups in the M.E. As late as the 6th C. Therefore it may never have used or recognized as a valid rite in the Catholic Church.
2nd. "Fragmentary remains": We do not possess the complete rite of St. Hippolytus; the rite used by the N.O. Was reconstructed by a working group inside the Vatican one of whose members went on record as stating that their work was so haphazard that they were leaving themselves wide open to future criticism and even mockery by future researchers.
3. Allusions to the power of the Episcopacy elsewhere in the rite do not supply for a defective form; just like in the Mass, the strong sacrificial allusions in the Offertory or in the Epiclesis,  would not supply for a defective form in the Canon.
4. The "form" of the rite is almost identical to the form of the "Enthronement" of a Maronite Archbishop; this rite, according to a Maronite Doctor of Canon Law that was consulted, stated flatly: 'Has never been used to Consecrate a Bishop'.

[St.Justin]

Fr. Cekada's research is very meticulous  but the conclusions he draws are most often way off.

[Michael Wilson]

Fr. Cekada's research is very meticulous  but the conclusions he draws are most often way off.

Some of the information about the work of the Committee working group and the latest research on the so called "Tradition of Hippolytus"; as well as the response to the query of the use of the Maronite Enthronement rite, come from a very interesting site, entitled: "Rore Scientifica"; which is dedicated exclusively to the question of the new rite of orders.
http://rore-sanctifica.org/index1.html

[Michael Wilson]

St. Justin stated:

If the Anglican Rite is invalid then the NO is invalid for the same reasons.

Michael Davies in his book, "The Order of Melchisedek" (original edition); stated that the only thing that guaranteed the validity of the new ordination rite, was the fact that the Pope had promulgated it, and therefore it could not be invalid; he said there was a lot of reasons otherwise to doubt its validity. He also stated that it was difficult to see how the new rite of Consecration of Bishops, did not violate "Apostolicae Curae" (!!!); but he prefered not to deal with this rite.
He also quoted an Anglican bishop stating the very same thing as St. Justin. 

[Michael Wilson]

St. Justin stated:

Michael I understand and have read everything you have posted. I just don't agree that the Anglican rite as it now exist is invalid ( I do accept the Church's position on this but still think for argument sake they are incorrect, as to the Rite).[/QUOTE\
St. Justin,
as a Catholic you are obliged to hold to the decision of Pope Leo, its therefore a contradiction to state that you agree with the Church's position, while at the same time holding forth to the validity of these rites.

[St.Justin]

St. Justin stated:

Michael I understand and have read everything you have posted. I just don't agree that the Anglican rite as it now exist is invalid ( I do accept the Church's position on this but still think for argument sake they are incorrect, as to the Rite).[/QUOTE\
St. Justin,
as a Catholic you are obliged to hold to the decision of Pope Leo, its therefore a contradiction to state that you agree with the Church's position, while at the same time holding forth to the validity of these rites.

I also said "Even Cardinal Basil Hume OSB disagreed but followed the Church's position". So I don't see anything wrong with my position especially since Leo says they are invalid based on time between  original and the fix (100 years).

[Non Nobis]

St. Justin stated:

Michael I understand and have read everything you have posted. I just don't agree that the Anglican rite as it now exist is invalid ( I do accept the Church's position on this but still think for argument sake they are incorrect, as to the Rite).

St. Justin,
as a Catholic you are obliged to hold to the decision of Pope Leo, its therefore a contradiction to state that you agree with the Church's position, while at the same time holding forth to the validity of these rites.

St.Justin, Michael,

I wonder if you (St. Justin) are perhaps thinking  of (or seemingly supported by) this in Pope Leo's bull:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13curae.htm

25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

So maybe you are saying  that "considering ONLY THE WORDS" there is some conceivable "even if" possibility that the current words are sufficient for validity?  But the rite as it exists concretely (in history now, not only in abstracted words) is invalid according to the Pope Leo and so the Church.  (Pope Leo goes on to consider the words for the consecration of bishops, although I've read even less of that).

In the modern Church even Cardinal Ratzinger (CDF) said this:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: ... , the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.37...

This article http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/ says that although the matter was discussed in the 20th century (because Pope Leo's committee did not not reach a unanimous decision), what Cardinal Ratzinger said closed the matter. (The website does not let me copy/paste).

The invalidity of Anglican orders is not divinely revealed, but once it is taught by the Church (not Cardinal Hume) we are meant to believe it.

[St.Justin]

The invalidity of Anglican orders is not divinely revealed, but once it is taught by the Church (not Cardinal Hume) we are meant to believe it.

What I meant by that comment was that Cardinal Hume Disagreed with the findings but accepted the Teaching of the Church

[Xavier]

SSPX has a very scholarly article proving the validity of the rite of Consecration: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

"Let us note in passing that these two rites are perfectly Catholic ... To assure ourselves of the validity of Pope Paul VI's rite, it will suffice for us to place side by side the new consecratory prayer and the two Eastern rites in question. The validity of these two rites can in no wise be called into question, otherwise the Coptic Church (Catholic as well as Orthodox) and the Syrian Church (which includes the Maronites) would have neither bishops nor priests, nor would they ever have had them. We have prepared a four-column comparison (refer Table 3: Four-column comparison of 1968 edition with Hippolytus text, Coptic and Maronite Rites) with, in order from left to right, Pope Paul VI's new consecratory prayer,[77] the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition [i.e., "of Hippolytus"—Ed.],[78] the Coptic rite, and the Syrian rite. For the latter two texts we have used the Denzinger translation.[79] With the four prayers transcribed into the same language, the comparison is made easy." See Table 3 http://sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrations

It's not necessary that St. Hippolytus was the author, though there are even now some scholarly proponents, even among liberal secularists (which is not common) that indeed he was "If the Apostolic Tradition is the work of Hippolytus of Rome, it could be dated before 235 CE (when Hippolytus is believed to have suffered martyrdom) and its origin would be Rome; this date has been defended in recent scholarship by Brent and Stewart.[3][4] ... baptism is also extended to children and infants in newcoming families. Regular worship includes not only a weekly eucharist, but also a shared fellowship meal, or agape feast. Ecstatic prophecy is occasionally encountered in worship. All of these observations confirm a date in the 3rd century or earlier." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Tradition Liberal secularists typically deny the Apostles' Creed came from the Apostles, so if even some of them are ready to grant St. Hippolytus was the author of at least the principal part of Apostolic Tradition, that's no small thing.

There are 5th century manuscripts of the work in Latin. There are texts in Eastern rites that almost certainly were influenced by this text.

All in all, it is certainly an ancient work. But even leaving that, the current Catholic Coptic and West Syrian Catholic rite leaves no doubt.

Therefore, even if Pope Paul VI was not a Pope as the Sedevacantists say, this rite would still be valid.

Take the main part which is designated as the form: "Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of Thy Principal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he bestowed on his holy apostles, who established the church in every place, the church which thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name." Is it doubtful that the Apostles were Bishops? No. Is it doubtful that Christ was a High Priest? No. Therefore, the essential part is not equivocal in referring either to the simple Priesthood or the High Priesthood, and yet, Michael, Fr. C's whole argument regarding the form hinges on that one point. The Principal Spirit referred to is the Grace of the Holy Spirit that confers the Episcopacy, as Christ did upon the Apostles.

Secondly, the context only confirms what the words of the form themselves mean, "thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy church. And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles" - upon the Bishop who is to serve as High Priest without blame is invoked, in the form, the "Principal Spirit" which Jesus gave to His Apostles. Since Jesus made His Apostles Bishops (and not just simple Priests, as everyone admits), where is the doubt over which order is signified? the accompanying portion only confirms what is already signified when it says "by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have authority to remit sins" and "according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles" again clear references to episcopal authority.

[Michael Wilson]

1. Re. The study by Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. you posted, has been refuted by Fr. Cekada's subsequent study, point by point; here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

some "highlights":

I encountered the issue by chance during my first
year (1975-76) at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminary at Ecône, Switzerland. I went to ask ArchbishopMarcel Lefebvre about whether conservative friends from my former seminary could work with the Societyafter ordination. He told me yes, in principle, but they would need to be conditionally ordained first, because Paul VI had changed the rite for Holy Orders.
The Archbishop explained that the new form (essential formula) in the rite for priestly ordination was doubtful because one word had been subtracted. The new form for episcopal consecration, the Archbishop continued, was completely different and thus invalid.

In case one would be skeptical of what Fr. Cekada said above, note, Msgr. Lefebvre wrote to my Dad in 1988 telling him that the new sacraments were all doubtful in 1988. Also mentioning that he had "re-ordained" priest "many" times.
This letter was posted on the traditional Dominical website: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/

If there is no doubt about the new Ordinaltion rites, why re-ordain?

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988

Very dear Mr. Wilson,

thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.

All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.

We are in the time of great apostasy.

We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.

Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!

We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.

I pray for you and your lovely family.

Devotly in Jesus and Mary.

Marcel Lefebvre

From the same website, a quote from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is also posted:

Bp Tissier de Mallerais, in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests:

"Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite. Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination."

Msgr. Tissier has a long article published in the District of Ireland's official Newsletter, detailing his doubts as to the new rites of ordination, calling them "Gnostic rites".

[Michael Wilson]

More on the invalidity of the new rite of Consecration from Fr. Cekada's article:

IV. An Eastern Rite Form?
Question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic
Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the
episcopacy?
If so, this would be the strongest evidence for arguing that the new form is valid. One could demonstrate that it therefore met the criteria Pius XII enunciated regarding the form for Holy Orders, because it would already be among the words "accepted and used by the Church in that sense."20 In his Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new rite, Paul VI says that new Preface for Episcopal Consecration is taken from The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (a document we shall discuss in section V), which continues to be used "in large part" for episcopal consecrations by two Catholic Eastern Rites in particular: the Coptic and the West Syrian. And indeed on this basis, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued: "The utilization of the form that is in use in two certainly valid Eastern rites assures its validity."21 But is the factual claim really true? Is the Paul VI form indeed in use in two Eastern Rites? All one need do is (1) ascertain from theology books which Eastern Rite consecration prayers are considered the sacramental forms, (2) look up those texts, and (3) compare them with the Paul VI form. Two general points immediately emerge to defeat the Eastern Rite argument: (1) The sacramental form that Paul VI prescribed for conferring the episcopacy consists of merely one sentence. Eastern Rite forms, however, consist of a whole prayer, or even a series of prayers, several hundred words long. So on the face of it, the Paul VI form — a mere 42
words long in Latin — cannot be described as a form "in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites." (2) Nor could one even claim that the entire Paul VI Preface of Episcopal Consecration (212 words long in Latin) is somehow a form "in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites." The Preface does indeed contain some phrases found in Eastern Rite forms — but there are significant omissions and variations. It is still not identical to any one of them.
So on both counts, the new form cannot be among the words "accepted and used by the Church" as a sacramental form for holy orders.

[Michael Wilson]

Does the new form 'resemble' the Maronite form?

B. Maronite Rite Form?
In the 5th century, some Syrians became monophysite heretics, and (like the Copts) went into schism after the Council of Chalcedon. These are also known as "Jacobites," after Jacob Baradai, who was clandestinely consecrated a bishop in the 6th century and organized their movement. Other West Syrians who opposed the monophysites came to be called Maronites (after the monastery of St. Maro, their center). Most Maronites eventually settled in Lebanon and were known for their deep devotion to the Holy See. The Maronites adopted some externals of the Roman Rite (vestments, altar style, etc.) but continued otherwise to follow the Rite of Antioch, one of the ancient patriarchal sees. According to Denzinger, the form for the episcopacy in the Maronite Rite consists of the prayers: "Deus qui universam Ecclesiam tuam per istos pontifices in manus impositione exornas, etc., Deus deorum et Dominus
dominantium."26 Comparing this with the Paul VI form reveals the following: (1) The Maronite form is a Preface at least 370 words long, interspersed with impositions of the
bishop's hand on the head of the candidate. It prays that the candidate receive the "sublime episcopal order," with subsequent prayers twice begging God to "perfect" his grace and priestly ministry.27 This form has nothing in common with the Paul VI form. (2) On a following page of the Maronite Rite for Episcopal Consecration, there is a prayer that has some phrases in common with the Paul VI form (e.g. "governing Spirit") and Preface ("loose bonds") but, even though it occurs in the ceremony, this is not the Maronite sacramental form.28 (3) The Maronite prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface of Episcopal Consecration is one found in the Rite for the Consecration of a Maronite Patriarch.29 And indeed Fr. Pierre-Marie reproduces much of the text to support arguments for the validity of the new rite. However, this prayer is not a sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy. It is merely an installation prayer, because the Maronite Patriarch is already a bishop when he is appointed.