New Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Valid?

Baylee · April 20, 2024, 05:14:04 AM

Here are Fr Cekada's articles on the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration for those who are interested and willing to consider:

https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf

awkward customer · April 20, 2024, 07:39:41 AM

From Fr Cekada's article, posted above -

QuotePaul VI designated the following passage in the Preface as the new form for the consecration of a
bishop:

"So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."

The dispute over the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration centers on this passage.

Whereas on the other hand,

QuotePius XII declared that the following words, contained in the consecratory Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, were the essential sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy:

"Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify
him with the dew of heavenly anointing."

From his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis,

So the question is, does the reformed NO Rite convey what the Traditional Rite does?

Michael Wilson · April 20, 2024, 08:27:37 AM

The problem with the new rite of Episcopal Consecration, is that there is no power of orders designated; the form contains the phrase: "the governing spirit"; but what is this "governing spirit"? Our Lord received the
grace of the Hypostatic Union i.e. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity; the Apostles did not receive this grace; He also received the fullness of all Sanctifying Grace possible; the Apostles did receive at least a high degree of this grace, yet this did not give them the power to consecrate bishops or ordain priests, this is a separate grace: the Power of Holy Orders. There is no clear indication that this grace is being conveyed.

Baylee · April 20, 2024, 09:51:01 AM

One rebuttal to Father's study (Fr Pierre-Marie) was that the New Rite form is similar to the Maronite and Syrian forms. However, such forms INSTALL a patriarch. They do NOT CONSECRATE the priest as a bishop. When those prayers are used, he is already a bishop.

Fr Pierre-Marie then goes on to say that such prayers can be used for both purposes. But, as Fr Cekada explains, the form must be UNIVOCAL and it cannot be univocal if it has two purposes.

Michael Wilson · April 20, 2024, 12:49:16 PM

Fr.Pierre Marie O.P. In his article found a flaw in Dr. Rama C's original study of the validity of New Rite of Orders, when Dr.C gave the form for the Maronite rite of the consecration of a bishop. Fr.P.M. held that Dr. C. Was mistaken and published what he purported to be the "real" form. Fr. Cekada in turn found that Dr. Rama had published the correct form; and the form published by Fr.P.M. Was for the rite for the installation of an already consecrated bishop as an archbishop; in other words a non-Sacramental form. Fr. Pierre Marie would latter admit that Dr. C and Fr. C were correct, but in a book he consulted, he stated that sometimes this rite was used to consecrate a bishop. The group "Rore Sanctifica", that has done extensive research on this issue, consulted a Maronite doctor of Canon Law, asking him if it was true that this installment ceremony was ever used for the consecration of a bishop, and the Maronite Dr. Responded: "no, never".
Since then the traditional Dominicans of Avrille have changed their position from one of "always valid-exceptionally invalid" to "one cannot be certain that it is valid, and it is safer to re-consecrate those consecrated in the new rite, and conditionally re-ordain those priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite.
Fr. Alvaro Calderon SSPX takes the position that the new rite is not an apostolic rite, and therefore one cannot be certain of its validity which is also a change from his original position, that the new rite was undoubtedly valid. I don't know what Fr. Glieze's (SSPX) position is; but he is very highly regarded in the SSPX as a theologian (as is Fr. Calderon), and I would be interested in finding out.

Baylee · April 20, 2024, 12:57:22 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 20, 2024, 12:49:16 PMFr.Pierre Marie O.P. In his article found a flaw in Dr. Rama C's original study of the validity of New Rite of Orders, when Dr.C gave the form for the Maronite rite of the consecration of a bishop. Fr.P.M. put out what he considered to be the real form. Fr. Cekada in turn found that Dr. Rama had published the correct form; and the form published by Fr.P.M. Was for the right of the installation of an already consecrated bishop as an archbishop; in other words a non-Sacramental form. Fr. Pierre Marie would latter admit that Dr. C and Fr. C were correct, but in a book he consulted, sometimes this rite was used to consecrate a bishop. The group "Rore Sanctifica", that has done extensive research on this issue, consulted a Maronite doctor of Canon Law, asking him if it was true that this installment ceremony was ever used for the consecration of a bishop, and the Maronite Dr. Responded: "no, never".
Since then the traditional Dominicans of Avrille have changed their position from one of "always valid-exceptionally invalid" to "one cannot be certain that it is valid, and it is safer to re-consecrate those consecrated in the new rite, and conditionally re-ordain those priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite.
Fr. Alvaro Calderon SSPX takes the position that the new rite is not an apostolic rite, and therefore one cannot be certain of its validity. I don't know what Fr. Glieze's (SSPX) position is; but he is very highly regarded in the SSPX as a theologian (as is Fr. Calderon), and I would be interested in finding out.

Are these priests in the SSPX or The Resistance? Because I don't get the impression that the SSPX agrees that the new rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful let alone invalid. Case in point: "Bishop" Hounder

Michael Wilson · April 20, 2024, 03:31:24 PM

Fr. Calderon and Fr. Glieze are both SSPX.

awkward customer · April 20, 2024, 03:53:06 PM

Does anyone know what the 'governing Spirit' is?

Baylee · April 20, 2024, 06:56:09 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 20, 2024, 03:31:24 PMFr. Calderon and Fr. Glieze are both SSPX.

Ok. But it appears the Dominicans of Arville are Resistance.

Michael Wilson · April 21, 2024, 09:11:02 AM

The Dominicans of Avrille are indeed resistance; it demonstrates that the issue of the invalidity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is not just a sede invention; as neither the Dominicans or the above mentioned SSPX priests are sedes.

awkward customer · April 21, 2024, 09:36:57 AM

Quote from: Baylee on April 20, 2024, 12:57:22 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 20, 2024, 12:49:16 PMFr.Pierre Marie O.P. In his article found a flaw in Dr. Rama C's original study of the validity of New Rite of Orders, when Dr.C gave the form for the Maronite rite of the consecration of a bishop. Fr.P.M. put out what he considered to be the real form. Fr. Cekada in turn found that Dr. Rama had published the correct form; and the form published by Fr.P.M. Was for the right of the installation of an already consecrated bishop as an archbishop; in other words a non-Sacramental form. Fr. Pierre Marie would latter admit that Dr. C and Fr. C were correct, but in a book he consulted, sometimes this rite was used to consecrate a bishop. The group "Rore Sanctifica", that has done extensive research on this issue, consulted a Maronite doctor of Canon Law, asking him if it was true that this installment ceremony was ever used for the consecration of a bishop, and the Maronite Dr. Responded: "no, never".
Since then the traditional Dominicans of Avrille have changed their position from one of "always valid-exceptionally invalid" to "one cannot be certain that it is valid, and it is safer to re-consecrate those consecrated in the new rite, and conditionally re-ordain those priests ordained by bishops consecrated in the new rite.
Fr. Alvaro Calderon SSPX takes the position that the new rite is not an apostolic rite, and therefore one cannot be certain of its validity. I don't know what Fr. Glieze's (SSPX) position is; but he is very highly regarded in the SSPX as a theologian (as is Fr. Calderon), and I would be interested in finding out.

Are these priests in the SSPX or The Resistance? Because I don't get the impression that the SSPX agrees that the new rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful let alone invalid. Case in point: "Bishop" Hounder

The SSPX does provide Conditional Confirmation though, for people who were Confirmed by Novus Ordo bishops.

awkward customer · April 21, 2024, 09:40:57 AM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 21, 2024, 09:11:02 AMThe Dominicans of Avrille are indeed resistance; it demonstrates that the issue of the invalidity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is not just a sede invention; as neither the Dominicans or the above mentioned SSPX priests are sedes.

That's right Michael.

The SSPX offers Conditional Confirmations, presumably because they have doubts about the validity of the new Rite of Consecration of Bishops.

So it's not just a Sede issue.

Michael Wilson · April 21, 2024, 10:05:26 AM

On "re-Confirmation" issue: that depends on the SSPX priest; some have no problem with people requesting conditional reconfirmation; others are against it.

awkward customer · April 21, 2024, 10:59:11 AM

So the SSPX doesn't have an official position on this.

If the NO Rite of Consecration is indeed invalid, the implications are truly horrendous.

Baylee · April 21, 2024, 12:10:57 PM

Quote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2024, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 21, 2024, 09:11:02 AMThe Dominicans of Avrille are indeed resistance; it demonstrates that the issue of the invalidity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is not just a sede invention; as neither the Dominicans or the above mentioned SSPX priests are sedes.

That's right Michael.

The SSPX offers Conditional Confirmations, presumably because they have doubts about the validity of the new Rite of Consecration of Bishops.

So it's not just a Sede issue.

With the SSPX, I have found that it's more on a case-by-case situation. Although they once believed the New Rite was invalid or at least doubtful, it is now more about the "intention" of the minister (ie. did the minister intend to do what the Church intends?). Of course, intention is not something easily determined/known.

Otherwise, they would never allow a "Bishop" Hounder into its ranks without conditional consecration.

I could be wrong, but the only other group that I have seen that still use the Old Rites across the board are the Resistance groups.

But yes, this isn't just an issue with the sedes (which is why I didn't post this in the SV sub-forum).