Zn Anglican acquaintance claims that he is catholic as their bishops have apostolic succession. How might I best refute this?
They don't have True Apostolic succession as Ordinary Jurisdiction is required for that. Some of them could have valid orders due to infiltration from the Old Catholic Line.
This will help you: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
tl;dr they lost apostolic succession in the mid-1500s when they changed their rites of ordination because they changed their theology on what a priest is (whereas the Orthodox have not). The intent changed and so the sacrament was lost.
I do not suspect this would change any hearts and minds. I'd rather ask about sola scriptura or sola fide if theology is to be discussed.
Quote from: St.Justin on February 22, 2019, 07:56:21 PM
They don't have True Apostolic succession as Ordinary Jurisdiction is required for that. Some of them could have valid orders due to infiltration from the Old Catholic Line.
Old Catholic Orders are now problematic, as some of them like the Ultrecht Union, pseudo-ordain women. The Dutch touch is no longer a sure thing.
The first change to the Anglican rites were indeed invalid (both form and intention).
They made changes 100 years later that fixed the problem (both form and intention).
So the problem with Anglican orders stems from the fact that the initial change invalided all Ordinations for 100years thereby leaving no one in the Anglican Church with valid orders to administer Ordinations with the fixed valid rites.
So there were no valid rites administered in the Anglican Church until they brought in some Old Catholic Bishops to correct the problem. So as far as I can ascertain there are a mixture of valid and invalid Priest and Bishops running around in the Anglican church with none of them having "Apostolic Succession" because they have no Ordinary Jurisdiction.
St. Justin,
we have discussed this before; Pope Leo XIII is quite definite that even with the latter additions in the Anglican Ordinals, they were still invalid:
Quote25. 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.
27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period,but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium .
Pope Leo goes on to state:
Quote31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
Joined to a defect in the "Form" of the Sacrament, is added the defect of "intention" in the rite itself, i.e. It is not a Catholic rite:
Quote33. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
Which led Pope Leo to finally render his decision:
Quote36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
How much clearer can the Pope be: "absolutely null and utterly void".
So do you hold that the NO rites are also invalid for the same reason?
Quote from: St.Justin on February 23, 2019, 05:35:33 PM
So do you hold that the NO rites are also invalid for the same reason?
Two separate issues.
1. For Leo XIII and therefore for Catholics, the Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void."
2. The new rite of orders is at best doubtful and probably invalid as Fr. Cekada's study ably demonstrates; but it remains a personal opinion.
Here is a two part article written in 1962 covering the whole controversy of Anglican Orders from a Catholic perspective by Fr. Paul Rust O.M.I.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6237
and part II: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6237
The article is well written and the priest presents both sides of the question very fairly and completely as possible in such a limited space, his final summation is as follows:
Quote 2. The Catholic Answer
a) Apostolicae Curae clearly set forth what doctrine of the Eucharist was rejected by Article XXXI and by the Edwardine reformers; why the reformers did reject this Catholic doctrine; what doctrine the reformers substituted for it.
b) Pope Leo had free access to the literary monuments of the English reformers, and these works left no doubt in his mind why they had altered the rite of ordination. The Pope knew, too, that the English reformers were "schoolmen" well versed in the theology of Catholicism as well as in the theology of the continental Protestants in whose footsteps they walked. These literary remains urge a convincing argument in favor of Apostolicae Curae, for they attest the undeniable fact that the new formularies of faith were designed to contradict traditional doctrines of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
c) With the passing of the years it is becoming increasingly difficult for Catholics to understand how Anglicans can long maintain their line of argumentation, confronted as they are with this massive testimony of their own Founding Fathers.27
d) In the long dialogue between Catholic and Anglican, Apostolicae Curae — as eirenic in purpose as it was temperate in argument — wrote Finis to a weary chapter of Church history.
e) As far as Catholics are concerned, "the case is closed" — "causa finite."
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 23, 2019, 05:48:07 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on February 23, 2019, 05:35:33 PM
So do you hold that the NO rites are also invalid for the same reason?
Two separate issues.
1. For Leo XIII and therefore for Catholics, the Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void."
2. The new rite of orders is at best doubtful and probably invalid as Fr. Cekada's study ably demonstrates; but it remains a personal opinion.
But the words and problems are the same? Not to mention Pius XII does not level the same requirements as to form as Leo XIII does. So which Pope is correct?
St. Justin,
I'm not sure what you are speaking of; Pius XII states that for valid "form" two things must be mentioned: 1. The orders one is receiving 2. The conferring of the Holy Ghost. Pius XII:
Quote4. 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.
And Pope Leo points out that the Anglican Ordinals do not specify what grace is being given; here is the Anglican "forms":
Quote Episcopate
Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.
Priesthood
Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained: and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of His holy sacraments. In the name of the Father, etc.
No mention of the Priesthood or the Episcopate in either form as specified by Pius XII.
The Fr. Rust quotes from an article in an Episcopal newspaper the following:
QuoteThe Pope has spoken with a promptness and with a determination which many did not expect. We are fully in accord with him, and we can subscribe to almost all his arguments. It is precisely what we have always held, namely, that by the Reformation the heads of the Church of England deliberately and effectively separated from the Church of Rome, repudiated her teaching on the priesthood and the episcopacy, and therefore in ordination they never had any intention of conferring the priesthood, since they considered sacerdotalism an injury to the Priesthood of Christ, without foundation in the Scriptures, and repugnant to all the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel.3
For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period,but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite.
Quote from: St.Justin on February 23, 2019, 06:32:26 PM
For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period,but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite.
Ok, but the difference being that Cramner and his successors let it be known that they rejected the Catholic theology of the Sacraments, Cramner was in fact a Swinglian.
here is Fr. Rust' article:
Quote 2. Second Act of Uniformity (1552)
Parliament suppressed the 1549-1550 liturgical books and imposed Cranmer's revised liturgy, with the explanation that the Anglican liturgy had now been made "fully perfect." Prayer Book and Ordinal actually did express the perfection, the full maturity, of Cranmer's beliefs relative to the sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders.
Professor Pollard measures the distance covered by Cranmer in reaching his point of no return: "It is clear that whatever foreign inspiration there may have been, that inspiration was Zwinglian rather than Calvinist."20
Zwingli as is notorious, denied the Sacraments any real effect.
The Anglicans themselves deny that the addition of the words "For the power of the Bishop & Priesthood etc." mark a return to Catholic theology of the Sacraments: Fr. Rust cites:
Quote"No such thing," explain our Anglicans. "What actually happened was this. When the 1662 liturgists revised the Edwardine 'forms,' they did so to make it clear that there is an essential difference between the priesthood and the episcopate." In 1662 Presbyterian theologians had cited the Ordinal "forms" to establish their contention that Anglicanism and Presbyterianism were united in the belief that "presbyterate" and "episcopate" are one and the same thing.
All of that was before "Mary I, also known as Mary Tudor, was the Queen of England and Ireland from July 1553 until her death. She is best known for her aggressive attempt to reverse the English Reformation, which had begun during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. The executions that marked her pursuit of the restoration of Roman Catholicism in England and Ireland led to her denunciation as "Bloody Mary" by her Protestant opponents." and before the wording was changed and has no bearing on what came after. I have been reading everything I kind find on this subject and all I can find is that Leo's arguments are based on the fact that he thinks they didn't really mean the changes. This seems to me to be the only valid reason for his condemnation "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."
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.
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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 24, 2019, 10:55:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Xavier on February 24, 2019, 12:26:35 PM
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.
Xavier stated:
QuoteIt 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'.
Fr. Cekada's research is very meticulous but the conclusions he draws are most often way off.
Quote from: St.Justin on February 25, 2019, 02:33:58 PM
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
St. Justin stated:
QuoteIf 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.
St. Justin stated:
QuoteMichael 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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 25, 2019, 03:25:41 PM
St. Justin stated:
QuoteMichael 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).
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 25, 2019, 03:25:41 PM
St. Justin stated:
QuoteMichael 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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
Quote from: Non Nobis on February 25, 2019, 08:39:52 PM
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
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.
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":
QuoteI 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?
QuoteEcône, 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:
QuoteBp 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".
More on the invalidity of the new rite of Consecration from Fr. Cekada's article:
QuoteIV. 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.
Does the new form 'resemble' the Maronite form?
QuoteB. 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.
Not an Eastern Form:
QuoteD. Not an Eastern Form.
We began this section with a question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy? The answer is no, because:
• The Paul VI form is not identical to the Eastern
Rite forms.
• In particular, the lengthy Eastern Rite formsmention either perfecting the priesthood or specific sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (ordaining priests, etc.). The Paul VI form does not.
• In the Maronite and Syrian Rites, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI consecration preface is not the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy, but a non-sacramental prayer for installing a Patriarch, who is usually already a bishop when he is
appointed.
So, one cannot argue that the Paul VI form is valid because it is in use as a sacramental form "in two certainly valid Eastern Rites." It is not among the words "accepted and used by
the Church in that sense," and there is no guarantee of validity on this basis.