Author Topic: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc.. (Read 6383 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2023, 11:14:01 AM »

Quote from: SPelli on June 21, 2023, 10:55:04 AM

How do you reconcile this contradiction?

This is a good question. Couple things come to mind. Florence is dealing with the subject in the context of the Armenians, so perhaps that's a reference to their Rite rather than the Roman Rite. Pius XII did make mention of the traditio instrumentorum mentioned by Florence as the matter of the Sacrament, but I can't recall exactly what he said about it.

Trent doesn't seem to say that the parts it called out are THE "essential" form. Also, this is the Catechism of Trent and not Trent itself, so it's not directly an act of the Magisterium and may have just been expressing a prevailing opinion at the time rather than definitively settling the matter. As you point out, the Catechism mentions two forms, one for conferring the power to offer the Sacrifice, and the other for the power to forgive sins ... but it seems to fall short of designating a single "essential" form. Perhaps they didn't think of it as being a simple single form vs. looking at it from the perspective of the entire Rite.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2023, 11:22:26 AM »

Here's what Pius XII wrote about the Council of Florence, and it makes sense:

Quote

Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

So, in the last sentence, he's saying that it may be considered a Church-imposed requirement for validity that has been changed, i.e. Church law vs. divine law, and yet the Church didn't impose it on the Greeks.

SPelli · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2023, 11:48:11 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 21, 2023, 11:09:40 AM

So, yes, Pius XII defined the precise matter + essential form the the Roman Rite ordination and consecration with Sacramentum Ordinis. Of course, that's not the entire picture. When Pope Leo XIII declared the Anglican orders to be invalid in Apostolicae curae, he laid out some other considerations pertaining to validity. He stated at one point that even if the Anglicans were to fix the essential form (which I think at one point they tried to do), i.e. if the essential form were valid, the ordination could still be considered invalid due to its larger context (ex adjunctis), and many of the point that Leo XIII called out about invalidating defects in the Anglican orders could easily apply to the NO rites also.

No, that's not what he said. What he said is that even though they did eventually correct the essential form in the rite, their bishops were still invalidly consecrated because the valid line had died out during the 150 years that the essential form was defective. It takes a validly ordained bishop to validly ordain/consecrate another man to the bishopric.

SPelli · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2023, 11:58:35 AM »

Quote from: SPelli on June 21, 2023, 11:48:11 AM

No, that's not what he said. What he said is that even though they did eventually correct the essential form in the rite, their bishops were still invalidly consecrated because the valid line had died out during the 150 years that the essential form was defective. It takes a validly ordained bishop to validly ordain/consecrate another man to the bishopric.

Here is what Leo XIII wrote: "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."

SPelli · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2023, 12:11:13 PM »

This gets to the heart of Fr. Johnson's error that caused him to conclude that the new rite of ordination is invalid. He mistakenly thinks that the rite itself - meaning the surrounding ceremony - is what give the meaning to the form, in such a way, that if the ceremony does not sufficiently signify that the person is being ordained to the priesthood, it will be invalid. This is a common error today. What gives the form its meaning are the words that constitute the form.

The adjunctis (surrounding prayers of the ceremony) can help give the form its meaning if the form itself does not sufficiently determine the matter, but the form, as such, does not derive its meaning from the surrounding ceremony. If it did, it would follow that baptism administered using only the matter and form would be invalid, since there is no ceremony to give the form its meaning.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc.. (Read 6383 times)

Ladislaus

Re: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc..

Ladislaus

Re: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc..

SPelli

Re: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc..

SPelli

Re: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc..

SPelli

Re: What Papal Docuмents Support the Ordination or the Consecration etc..