Author Topic: Bp. Rifan--Valid Bishop? (Read 1772 times)

Jim · « **on:** December 03, 2011, 02:32:30 AM »

From a sedevacantist assumption that the 1968 episcopal consecrations are invalid, is Mons. Rifan a validly consecrated bishop? Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos, consecrated in the 1968, was principal consecrator, but Mons. Licinio Rangel, consecrated in the traditional rite, was a co-consecrator.

Please see

At the 06:27 mark, Dom Licinio Rangel, I think, if not he is the first one, lays his hand and recites something, maybe the rore santifica.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2011, 04:03:19 AM »

I stumbled over this a year ago or so, and indeed, as far as I can tell he is a valid Bishop.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2011, 07:06:45 AM »

Quote from: Jim

From a sedevacantist assumption that the 1968 episcopal consecrations are invalid, is Mons. Rifan a validly consecrated bishop? Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos, consecrated in the 1968, was principal consecrator, but Mons. Licinio Rangel, consecrated in the traditional rite, was a co-consecrator.

Please see

At the 06:27 mark, Dom Licinio Rangel, I think, if not he is the first one, lays his hand and recites something, maybe the rore santifica.

1) One need not be a sedevacantist to question the validity of the 1968 rite; I am not a sedevacantist (though like ABL, I acknowledge the theoretical possiobility, without declaring it as fact), but am far from certain on the validity of the new rite (and Ordinal, for that matter);

2) If the 1968 rite is invalid, the the presence of a pre-1968 consecrated bishop (i.e., Rangel) will not sanate the consecration using that same invalid rite;

3) If the 1968 rite is valid, but Hoyos placed himself outside the Church (e.g., by heresy/schism, which I am not accusing him of), the consecration would still be valid, just as Orthodox using valid rites validly consecrate.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2011, 07:16:18 AM »

The old rite was used, as can be clearly seen in the video.

The problem with Hoyo is not his schism (whether he is in schism/heresy or not I don´t want to judge here), but that he was consecrated in the new rite.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2011, 07:23:50 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

The old rite was used, as can be clearly seen in the video.

The problem with Hoyo is not his schism (whether he is in schism/heresy or not I don´t want to judge here), but that he was consecrated in the new rite.

In that case, the presence/participation of Rangel would sanate the defect potentially present in Hoyos.

Sigismund · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2011, 02:00:32 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Jim
From a sedevacantist assumption that the 1968 episcopal consecrations are invalid, is Mons. Rifan a validly consecrated bishop? Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos, consecrated in the 1968, was principal consecrator, but Mons. Licinio Rangel, consecrated in the traditional rite, was a co-consecrator.

Please see

At the 06:27 mark, Dom Licinio Rangel, I think, if not he is the first one, lays his hand and recites something, maybe the rore santifica.

1) One need not be a sedevacantist to question the validity of the 1968 rite; I am not a sedevacantist (though like ABL, I acknowledge the theoretical possiobility, without declaring it as fact), but am far from certain on the validity of the new rite (and Ordinal, for that matter);

2) If the 1968 rite is invalid, the the presence of a pre-1968 consecrated bishop (i.e., Rangel) will not sanate the consecration using that same invalid rite;

3) If the 1968 rite is valid, but Hoyos placed himself outside the Church (e.g., by heresy/schism, which I am not accusing him of), the consecration would still be valid, just as Orthodox using valid rites validly consecrate.

That seems like a pretty solid conclusion.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2011, 12:17:35 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Pyrrhos
The old rite was used, as can be clearly seen in the video.

The problem with Hoyo is not his schism (whether he is in schism/heresy or not I don´t want to judge here), but that he was consecrated in the new rite.

In that case, the presence/participation of Rangel would sanate the defect potentially present in Hoyos.

May I kindly ask how you came to this conclusion? I agree, one does not have to be a typical "sede" to have serious objections and even questions on the validity of the 1968 rites.

joe17 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 04, 2011, 12:35:39 PM »

In the consecration of bishops, the co-consecrators are there, praying the form along with the consecrator. If, for instance, one or two of the consecrators r withheld their intention, or, as in this case, were not valid bishops themselves, it would not matter so long as the true bishop(Rangel in this case) says the form.
As can be deduced, Bishop Rifan owes his consecration as a true bishop to Bishop Rangel, not Fr de Hoyos and the other NO presbyter.

Joe