Author Topic: How do you find out if a priest was validly ordained? (Read 5041 times)

1st Mansion Tenant · « **on:** October 24, 2012, 12:18:28 AM »

Probably a silly question for many of you life long Trads, but please humor me. It does not sound very diplomatic to me to accost some poor unsuspecting priest and demand his credentials and interrogate him. I don't even know what questions to ask. Do I ask who ordained him and compare his reply to some list I don't know about? Do I ask which seminary he attended? If he believes in Transubstantiation? What then? I am just clueless. Thanks.

Alex117 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2012, 12:28:09 AM »

Place him in front of a mirror. If he does not cast a reflection, he has not been validly ordained. If he does, then you can be assured that the Eucharist is being consecrated in good hands.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

In truth, this question is beyond my capacity to answer. I apologize.

Alex117 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2012, 12:34:07 AM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Probably a silly question for many of you life long Trads, but please humor me. It does not sound very diplomatic to me to accost some poor unsuspecting priest and demand his credentials and interrogate him. I don't even know what questions to ask. Do I ask who ordained him and compare his reply to some list I don't know about? Do I ask which seminary he attended? If he believes in Transubstantiation? What then? I am just clueless. Thanks.

Actually, even though this question is truly beyond me, I'll give it a shot anyway. If I were in your shoes and curious if a priest were valid, I would go up to the priest and pretend to be an idiot. I would start making small talk with him and ask him what seminary he attended. Then I would bring up how my friends were "talking about this Transubstantiation thing", and then ask him to explain what it is, and whether or not he believes in it.

If he gave me good answers, I would rest easy. If he gave me strange answers, I would be suspicious. However, I probably wouldn't doubt his validity unless he gave me really good reason to.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2012, 12:55:54 AM »

No wonder Charizards have a reputation for mischievousness.

Nishant · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2012, 01:12:09 AM »

Well, briefly, validity of the sacrament of holy orders depends entirely on three things, the sacramental form of the ordination rite employed, the matter which is merely the laying on off hands, and the correct intention of the minister of this sacrament, who in this case is a Bishop.

If these three are present, all else to the contrary notwithstanding, the sacerdotal character is validly conferred, and the person is a true priest. If any one is lacking, he remains a mere layman, and consequently would be unable to forgive sins in the sacrament of penance and validly confect the holy Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament.

So, briefly, provided a Bishop lays his hands on a candidate for the priesthood, intends to make him a priest, and uses a valid ordination rite, the person becomes a priest.

The only controversy arises today because some allege that the new rite of ordination of priests (1968) is invalid. Yet, between the essential form of the 1968 rite and the essential form of the 1947 rite there is only one word of difference, a word which is trivial to the meaning.

Everyone knows the traditional rite is valid and it has always been used since the earliest ages. Whether or not the 1968 rite of consecration of Bishops is valid is much disputed, though in my opinion it can be shown this rite itself is based on a quite ancient usage, and is therefore part of the liturgical Tradition of the early Church.

So, yes, priestly lineage is important in such considerations. But if the 1968 rite is valid, then, practically speaking, probably most priests you encounter, including at the Indult or elsewhere in the Church, even notoriously bad ones, just like the traitor Judas was a bad and apostate priest, are still real priests.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2012, 01:16:19 AM »

The 1968 rite of "ordination" is not valid.

So anyone ordained using it is not a priest.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #6 on:** October 24, 2012, 01:18:42 AM »

If a Bishop was validly ordained as a priest by a valid Bishop using the old Rite of Ordination, and if he was then validly consecrated as a Bishop by a valid Bishop using the old Rite of Consecration, then if there are no other impediments he could validly ordain priests and consecrate Bishops.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2012, 04:12:22 AM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Probably a silly question for many of you life long Trads, but please humor me. It does not sound very diplomatic to me to accost some poor unsuspecting priest and demand his credentials and interrogate him. I don't even know what questions to ask. Do I ask who ordained him and compare his reply to some list I don't know about? Do I ask which seminary he attended? If he believes in Transubstantiation? What then? I am just clueless. Thanks.

Avoid the NO no matter what and this will not be an issue, otherwise, keep it simple. Simply ask when he was ordained. Pre-1968 means you can have some confidence of validity, any time newer than that and ordination is doubtful. The younger the priest, the higher the doubt.

Basically, we are justified to doubt validity for any NO priest younger than about 70 years old.

Marlelar · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2012, 10:03:53 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

The only controversy arises today because some allege that the new rite of ordination of priests (1968) is invalid. Yet, between the essential form of the 1968 rite and the essential form of the 1947 rite there is only one word of difference, a word which is trivial to the meaning.

I found a comparison (in English) of the Old and New Rites online and there were numerous and significant changes, could you please give me more information on your opinion that there is only one word of difference? I'm wondering if I have an accurate translation.

Marsha

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2012, 11:33:28 AM »

So, what makes you confident that a bishop is really a bishop? In the case of the
4 SSPX bishops, they were consecrated WITHOUT permission from Rome, but hey,
if that had taken place only 6 years earlier, there would have been nobody saying
there was any need for any 'permission from Rome.' . . Did you know that?

How so? Sorry. You didn't ask that question.. so I won't bother to answer it.

But anyway, we have 4 bishops who are ordaining priests left and right, and these
priests are saying the CTLM all over the world, and nobody is questioning the
validity of their Holy Orders (well, maybe someone is, but they don't get much
attention, whoever they are).

So 'Permission from Rome' wasn't an issue, was it?

Well, then why did several Abbots of monasteries in the past get Permission from
Rome to ordain priests without having any bishop around to imposition hands
and confer valid orders? That is, yes, the Pope gave written permission on
multiple occasions in Church history for a priest (not a bishop) to confer
the sacrament of Holy Orders on minor orders clerics who were candidates for
the priesthood, because, the bishop they had in mind was for some reason or
other no longer available to carry out the ordination(s).

Therefore, it is not even absolutely necessary to have a bishop in order to give
valid Holy Orders. . . Did you know that?

So therefore, not only did the Permission from Rome to consecrate bishops not
make any difference until 1983, and then if not then, perhaps arguably never,
but, why would Permission from Rome make any difference when a priest, in
the state of emergency or necessity, deigns to ordain a priest (or two) since
'permission' is not absolutely necessary, and these things have all been done
in previous situations?

And consequently, since you don't really need to have a bishop for this, why are
sedes standing on their heads and tearing up pages of archives looking for
reasons to doubt the validity of priestly ordinations based on whether or not a
so-called bishop is really a bishop or whatever?

Answer: because sedes think they're experts and they really are not experts at
all.

They cast aspersions on others while in fact they commit the same errors
themselves, without knowing it (perhaps).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2012, 12:25:26 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

So, what makes you confident that a bishop is really a bishop? In the case of the
4 SSPX bishops, they were consecrated WITHOUT permission from Rome, but hey,
if that had taken place only 6 years earlier, there would have been nobody saying
there was any need for any 'permission from Rome.' . . Did you know that?

How so? Sorry. You didn't ask that question.. so I won't bother to answer it.

But anyway, we have 4 bishops who are ordaining priests left and right, and these
priests are saying the CTLM all over the world, and nobody is questioning the
validity of their Holy Orders (well, maybe someone is, but they don't get much
attention, whoever they are).

So 'Permission from Rome' wasn't an issue, was it?

Well, then why did several Abbots of monasteries in the past get Permission from
Rome to ordain priests without having any bishop around to imposition hands
and confer valid orders? That is, yes, the Pope gave written permission on
multiple occasions in Church history for a priest (not a bishop) to confer
the sacrament of Holy Orders on minor orders clerics who were candidates for
the priesthood, because, the bishop they had in mind was for some reason or
other no longer available to carry out the ordination(s).

Therefore, it is not even absolutely necessary to have a bishop in order to give
valid Holy Orders. . . Did you know that?

So therefore, not only did the Permission from Rome to consecrate bishops not
make any difference until 1983, and then if not then, perhaps arguably never,
but, why would Permission from Rome make any difference when a priest, in
the state of emergency or necessity, deigns to ordain a priest (or two) since
'permission' is not absolutely necessary, and these things have all been done
in previous situations?

And consequently, since you don't really need to have a bishop for this, why are
sedes standing on their heads and tearing up pages of archives looking for
reasons to doubt the validity of priestly ordinations based on whether or not a
so-called bishop is really a bishop or whatever?

Answer: because sedes think they're experts and they really are not experts at
all.

They cast aspersions on others while in fact they commit the same errors
themselves, without knowing it (perhaps).

I would ask him the following:

"Were you ordained in the old rite by a bishop that was consecrated in the old rite."

The follow-up would be.

"Who was the bishop that ordained you."

If necessary I would do research on that bishop and see if he himself was consecrated by a valid bishop.

If he responded by saying "stop reading and do what we say". I would assume he was not validly ordained until proof to the contrary was provided.

The faithful certainly have a right to know the answer to the question.

We need a Pope soooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaaaad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2012, 09:46:46 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Well, briefly, validity of the sacrament of holy orders depends entirely on three things, the sacramental form of the ordination rite employed, the matter which is merely the laying on off hands, and the correct intention of the minister of this sacrament, who in this case is a Bishop.

If these three are present, all else to the contrary notwithstanding, the sacerdotal character is validly conferred, and the person is a true priest. If any one is lacking, he remains a mere layman, and consequently would be unable to forgive sins in the sacrament of penance and validly confect the holy Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament.

So, briefly, provided a Bishop lays his hands on a candidate for the priesthood, intends to make him a priest, and uses a valid ordination rite, the person becomes a priest.

The only controversy arises today because some allege that the new rite of ordination of priests (1968) is invalid. Yet, between the essential form of the 1968 rite and the essential form of the 1947 rite there is only one word of difference, a word which is trivial to the meaning.

Everyone knows the traditional rite is valid and it has always been used since the earliest ages. Whether or not the 1968 rite of consecration of Bishops is valid is much disputed, though in my opinion it can be shown this rite itself is based on a quite ancient usage, and is therefore part of the liturgical Tradition of the early Church.

So, yes, priestly lineage is important in such considerations. But if the 1968 rite is valid, then, practically speaking, probably most priests you encounter, including at the Indult or elsewhere in the Church, even notoriously bad ones, just like the traitor Judas was a bad and apostate priest, are still real priests.

As usual, wise words from Nishant.

Nishant · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2012, 02:33:41 AM »

Thank you, Sigismund. :-)

Marsha, His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1947 issued the Apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis saying,

Quote

"In the Ordination to the Priesthood ... the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

"Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Pres byterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus[/b], secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet."

Likewise, in 1968, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic constitution saying,

Quote

"The form consists of the words of the same prayer of consecration, of which the following pertain to the essence of the rite, and hence are required for validity:

Grant, we pray you, Almighty Father, to these your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the Spirit of holiness; may they obtain as a gift from you, O God, the office of second dignity, and by the example of their behaviour, may they provide a rule of conduct."

(Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, his famulis tuis Pres byterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eorum Spiritum sanctitatis; acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant, censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent.)

The only difference in the essential form in the original text is the Latin word "ut" meaning "that".

The entire 1968 rite is here

Now, this is important because the essential form is to the sacrament of holy orders what the words of consecration are to the Holy Eucharist. If these words are present, the validity of the rite is ensured and the sacrament itself is effected. That doesn't mean the other portions are unimportant to the integrity of the rite, only that they do not determine validity, just as the Canon of the Mass does not determine the validity of transubstantiation.

So, yes, I think it is valid. But was it a good change? Should what was removed be added again? Those are different questions and personally, I think yes, the removal of some prayers and portions of the rite was most unfortunate and that these should be reintroduced. But in the meanwhile, the rite is not invalid.