CathInfo.com

Are you sure that you know what "essential form" means?

The one sentence is not the "essential form."  It is the essential aspect of the form, without which it would be invalid.


Have you noticed that Angelus keeps saying the form of the old rite was the entire preface?  He's right. The entire preface is the form of the old rite, just as the entire consecration prayer is the form of the new rite. Within the form there is one essential sentence that is required for validity.  Pius XII explains this in Sacramentum Ordinis:

Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.” (Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis)

Here again is what Paul VI said about the form of the new rite:

Finally, in the ordination of the Bishop ... the form is constituted by the words of the ordination prayer itself, of which the following are essential, and therefore required for validity: Pour out now upon this Chosen One the power that comes from you, O Father, your Spirit who rules and guides: you gave it to your beloved Son Jesus Christ and he transmitted it to the holy Apostles who in different parts of the earth founded the Church as your sanctuary in Glory and perennial praise of your name.  Constitutio Apostolica Pontificalis Romani | Paulus PP. VI (vatican.va)

Those are the essential words.

What this means is that the additional words that constitute the form are more than merely the adjunctis; they are part of the form itself. While the essential sentence alone sufficiently signifies the sacramental effect, when you include the remainder of the form, it is undeniable that it signifies that the person is being raised to the episcopate.  Conclusion: The new rite of episcopal consecration is undeniably valid.

SPelli, you never answered the question.  Are you John Salza?

The one sentence is not the "essential form."  It is the essential aspect of the form, without which it would be invalid.


Have you noticed that Angelus keeps saying the form of the old rite was the entire preface?  He's right. The entire preface is the form of the old rite, just as the entire consecration prayer is the form of the new rite. Within the form there is one essential sentence that is required for validity. 


Here again is what Paul VI said about the form of the new rite:


Those are the essential words.

What this means is that the additional words that constitute the form are more than merely the adjunctis; they are part of the form itself. While the essential sentence alone sufficiently signifies the sacramental effect, when you include the remainder of the form, it is undeniable that it signifies that the person is being raised to the episcopate.  Conclusion: The new rite of episcopal consecration is undeniably valid.

A couple of corrections are needed to what SPelli has said:

1. While SPelli is correct that the ENTIRE Preface is "the form" of the Sacrament, it is false that there is only one sentence in that "form" that is "required for validity." Let's look at the actual Latin in Sacramentum Ordinis as evidence of the contrary:

LATIN:  "Forma autem constat verbis « Praefationis », quorum haec sunt essentialia ideoque ad valorem requisita..."

ENGLISH:  "The form consists [constat] of the words of the "Preface", of which these are essential and therefore required for signification [ad valorem]..."

The latin phrase "ad valorum" does not mean "validity" in Sacramentum Ordinis. For proof of this, use Find in your browser to search Sacramentum Ordinis (in Latin) for the stem "valid." You will see five words using the actual Latin word used to mean "validity" by Pius XII.

In fact, in the final sentence in paragraph 3 of Sacramentum Ordinis, the word "validitatem" (validity) is contrasted with the phrase "ad valorem" (value/strength/signification) by Pius XII himself:

LATIN: Quibus colligitur, etiam secundum mentem ipsius Concilii Florentini, traditionem instrumentorum non ex ipsius Domini Nostri Iesu Christi voluntate ad substantiam et ad validitatem huius Sacramenti requiri. Quod si ex Ecclesiae voluntate et praescripto eadem aliquando fuerit necessaria ad valorem quoque, omnes norunt Ecclesiam quod statuit etiam mutare et abrogare valere.

ENGLISH: It is gathered from them, even according to the mind of the Florentine Council itself, that the tradition of the instruments was not required by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself for the substance and validity [validatem] of this Sacrament. But if, by the will and prescription of the Church, the same should at any time be necessary for the value [ad valorem] also, all know that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what it has decreed.

Pius XII is saying that the "traditionem instrumentorum" was not required by Our Lord "for substance and validity" of the Sacrament, meaning for the setting of the indelible mark. Instead, the "traditionem instrumentorum" was added to the ceremony by "the Church" for value/strength/signification of what was occurring. And, therefore, since the Church (not Our Lord) added the "traditionem instrumentum," the Church can take it away. But the Church cannot take away what is required "for substance and validity," which is the "matter" and the "form" (aka "the substance") of the Sacrament. In other words, Pius XII uses the phrase ad valorem exactly opposite from the way that SPelli is translating it and interpreting it.

Bottom line: The Latin phrase ad valorem DOES NOT mean "validity" in Sacramentum Ordinis. And, therefore, the premise upon which SPelli's argument depends is false.


2. It should be common sense that if the ENTIRE "Preface" is "the form" of the Sacrament that the ENTIRE "form" is necessary to signify the graces being conferred. This is the case for all Sacraments. If he meant that only the single sentence of "the form" was necessary for validity, then Pius XII would have said something like "the form consists of the following single sentence from the Preface...." But he did not say that.

You cannot just leave out 80% of the words in "the form" of a Sacrament. It would be like saying that the form of Baptism is "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," but it's okay if you just say the words "I baptize thee." That short form would be invalid because the Church would say that it does not properly signify what is needed to effect the graces of Baptism.

The Church has defined what "the form" are for the different levels of Holy Orders. That "form" consists of the ENTIRE "Preface" specified by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis. A single sentence alone from that "Preface" is not "the form" of the Sacrament.