Hypothetic​al Question

[ManOfLamancha]

Okay, so I just made this account because I thought of a hypothetical question regarding ordination. Normally I find the answer to my questions on other peoples threads but I could not find one for this question. This is my first post so bear with me.

Let’s say that Francis puts out a Bull (infallible) that defines the words that are needed for an ordination to be valid. They are, just for simplicity, “I make you a priest so that you may forgive sins” Francis says that more than just these words are needed and that other parts are just as important, then he lists some of the things that are important. Now these EXACT words MUST be said in the ceremony in THIS ORDER. Francis then dies and another man is elected pope. He puts out a document that says that the words are changing from “I make you a priest so that you may forgive sins” to "I make you a priest to forgive sins " Further he changes and/or removes about half of the form of the sacrament including some of the parts that are listed by Francis as important. The Reason he gives for changing the words and form are this is more accurate to what Francis meant when he put out the Bull. Would the sacrament be valid or would there be a reasonable doubt about the new form?
Just for giggles, what do you think?

 

[Pita53]

I mean no disrespect but I 'm not sure you understand the charism of infallibility. It is rather like one of my kids asking if God is all powerful can He make a rock so heavy He is not able to pick it up? You may find it helpful to refer to the catechism #2035.

 

[Gorgias]

MoL,

If the Pope were to make such a statement, he wouldn’t be defining doctrine or dogma about faith and morals (i.e., the kinds of things about which infallible statements are made). Rather, this kind of statement would be about the regulation of the sacraments. This falls within the authority of the Church, but isn’t something that cannot change. Therefore, if the Rite of Ordination were to change today, it could be changed next week or next month or next year, and there would be no question of validity or lack thereof.

 

[dmar198]

Okay, so I just made this account because I thought of a hypothetical question regarding ordination. Normally I find the answer to my questions on other peoples threads but I could not find one for this question. This is my first post so bear with me.

Let’s say that Francis puts out a Bull (infallible) that defines the words that are needed for an ordination to be valid. They are, just for simplicity, “I make you a priest so that you may forgive sins” Francis says that more than just these words are needed and that other parts are just as important, then he lists some of the things that are important. Now these EXACT words MUST be said in the ceremony in THIS ORDER. Francis then dies and another man is elected pope. He puts out a document that says that the words are changing from “I make you a priest so that you may forgive sins” to "I make you a priest to forgive sins " Further he changes and/or removes about half of the form of the sacrament including some of the parts that are listed by Francis as important. The Reason he gives for changing the words and form are this is more accurate to what Francis meant when he put out the Bull. Would the sacrament be valid or would there be a reasonable doubt about the new form?
Just for giggles, what do you think?

It is my understanding that the Church has quite a bit of latitude to modify the form of the Sacrament of Ordination. The Sacrament is conferred validly wherever there is correct matter (a male), correct intention (the intention to ordain a deacon, priest, or bishop), and correct form (the correct words), conferred by a valid bishop or, where a bishop cannot be made available, a priest delegated with the authority to confer ordination.

BTW priests can also be delegated the authority to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation if a bishop is unavailable. I was confirmed by a delegated priest due to a special circumstance, for example, and the Eastern Catholic churches routinely have the priest confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, but he uses oil that is blessed by the bishop. The Sacrament of Ordination, being much more serious, is very rarely delegated to a priest instead of a bishop, though it has happened occasionally.

Anyway the use of a particular form of benediction for this Sacrament is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, and so it is never irreformable. If one pope issued a bull making Phrase X the necessary form of the Sacrament, and then a subsequent pope issued a bull declaring Phrase Y to be the necessary form of the Sacrament, in both cases priests would be obligated to perform the Sacrament using the form specified in the papal bull of the most recent pope, otherwise they would risk using incorrect form, and invalidating the Sacrament.

BTW even if the pope decided very strongly in favor of a particular formula and declared that his decision was binding on all future popes, technically the next pope could still reform that decision, simply by loosing the declaration that the previous pope had tried to use to hold him bound. Whatever one pope binds, the next pope can loose, no matter how strongly the pope wants his successors to follow his own path. (Though they would almost certainly not disrespect their predecessor’s wishes so quickly as you suggest.) This is because the charism of infallibility does not protect decisions about matters of discipline.

 

[ManOfLamancha]

I am not sure I understand this.

“Anyway the use of a particular form of benediction for this Sacrament is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, and so it is never irreformable. If one pope issued a bull making Phrase X the necessary form of the Sacrament, and then a subsequent pope issued a bull declaring Phrase Y to be the necessary form of the Sacrament, in both cases priests would be obligated to perform the Sacrament using the form specified in the papal bull of the most recent pope, otherwise they would risk using incorrect form, and invalidating the Sacrament.”

Are you saying that if a pope were to issue a bull changing the words of a Sacrament it is valid regardless of what the change is? So if the pope says “I’m changing the words of baptism from I baptize you in the name of the Father and of The Son and Of The Holy Ghost” to ‘I make you a Catholic’ and instead of water we will use wine" that would still be valid?

 

[Gorgias]

Are you saying that if a pope were to issue a bull changing the words of a Sacrament it is valid regardless of what the change is? So if the pope says “I’m changing the words of baptism from I baptize you in the name of the Father and of The Son and Of The Holy Ghost” to ‘I make you a Catholic’ and instead of water we will use wine" that would still be valid?

These are two distinctly different kinds of changes! In the case of Baptism and Eucharist, you’re talking about phrases that are found in Scripture; changing those words would be an attempt to run counter to the words of Jesus. On the other hand, in the case of ordination (and reconciliation), you’ve got words that were decided upon by the Church, in the normal regulation of its sacraments. Therefore, they’re not something that is irreformable. The distinction here is critical!

 

[ManOfLamancha]

These are two distinctly different kinds of changes! In the case of Baptism and Eucharist, you’re talking about phrases that are found in Scripture; changing those words would be an attempt to run counter to the words of Jesus. On the other hand, in the case of ordination (and reconciliation), you’ve got words that were decided upon by the Church, in the normal regulation of its sacraments. Therefore, they’re not something that is irreformable. The distinction here is critical!

So, because the other sacrament’s forms are not found in the bible the popes can change them at will? Does that mean that the ones who’s form is found in the bible are unchangeable? if so why only these? Aren’t they all founded in Scripture and tradition? Also, if there is a need for reform does that mean they were invalid beforehand? Why change something that has been the same for thousands of years?

Thanks for replying by the way

 

[Elizium23]

The Church has certain teachings about the sacraments, and one of these is the essential elements of each one for validity. These details have been hammered out over centuries and millennia by theologians and have developed gradually - they were not born fully formed in the Apostolic Age. Various declarations have been made through the years of the essential words required for certain sacraments, and insofar as these might be infallibly defined, they are not something that can be changed by the current Holy Father. Since the charism of infallibility means that the Pope will not teach error of faith or morals, one Pope will not repudiate another Pope on these matters.

That being said, you have to understand the perspective of the Church here. Just as the Church has no authority to dictate for herself what is valid matter for the Eucharist, she has no authority to determine the words to confect a sacrament, she can only discern what God has commanded they should be. This is a subtle but important distinction that must be made. Similarly, the Church acknowledges that she cannot ordain women to the priesthood, or marry men to men or women to women. The word ‘cannot’ is operative here, we cannot say that she simply will not, because even if the Church wanted to, it would be impossible. The Church in her authority determines the bounds of the sacraments and she recognizes that certain things are required for their validity in the eyes of God, and she declares these things to be true. These are divine laws which have been revealed to us, not laws of men that may be changed.

Once you understand the extent of the authority of the Church and the nature of infallibility then this becomes an easy question.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

where a bishop cannot be made available, a priest delegated with the authority to confer ordination.

BTW priests can also be delegated the authority to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation if a bishop is unavailable. I was confirmed by a delegated priest due to a special circumstance, for example, and the Eastern Catholic churches routinely have the priest confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, but he uses oil that is blessed by the bishop. The Sacrament of Ordination, being much more serious, is very rarely delegated to a priest instead of a bishop, though it has happened occasionally.

I did not know this. Do you have more information on it and hopefully a citation or two? Thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

So, because the other sacrament’s forms are not found in the bible the popes can change them at will? Does that mean that the ones who’s form is found in the bible are unchangeable? if so why only these? Aren’t they all founded in Scripture and tradition? Also, if there is a need for reform does that mean they were invalid beforehand? Why change something that has been the same for thousands of years?

Elizium’s points are well taken, and are important in answering your question. A change in the discipline of the sacraments is never undertaken purely “at will,” as you’ve put it. A pope wouldn’t simply make a change to a sacrament at a whim and on his own. Moreover, this doesn’t mean that a subsequent change to a sacrament implies that the prior state was invalid; rather, both are valid in their own context.

Why change? That would depend on the particular sacrament and the particular context. It would be necessary to examine the historical development of a particular sacrament in order to discuss its changes and the contexts that precipitated them…

 

[Elizium23]

It is my understanding that the Church has quite a bit of latitude to modify the form of the Sacrament of Ordination. The Sacrament is conferred validly wherever there is correct matter (a male), correct intention (the intention to ordain a deacon, priest, or bishop), and correct form (the correct words), conferred by a valid bishop or, where a bishop cannot be made available, a priest delegated with the authority to confer ordination.

I have never heard of priests being delegated to confer ordination. I thought it was impossible per sacramental theology. Many priests are honorary prelates of some capacity or another, with the right to certain elements such as form of address, vestments, pontificalia, and authority or jurisdiction, but I have never heard of any of them ordaining anyone.

Take for example the current ordinaries of the Anglicanorum Coetibus Personal Ordinariates. They are all married priests with the rank of protonotary apostolic and the right to pontifical insignia, in fact the only thing they cannot do is ordain priests. If anyone should have received the faculty to ordain it would be them.

Edit: it seems to have been possible in Church history, at least in the West. So I will soften my stance, but I contend that it is extremely unlikely, given the currents in sacramental theology and ecclesiology, to happen again in any of the 23 Catholic Churches.

 

[dmar198]

I did not know this. Do you have more information on it and hopefully a citation or two? Thanks.

I have never heard of priests being delegated to confer ordination. I thought it was impossible per sacramental theology. Many priests are honorary prelates of some capacity or another, with the right to certain elements such as form of address, vestments, pontificalia, and authority or jurisdiction, but I have never heard of any of them ordaining anyone.

Take for example the current ordinaries of the Anglicanorum Coetibus Personal Ordinariates. They are all married priests with the rank of protonotary apostolic and the right to pontifical insignia, in fact the only thing they cannot do is ordain priests. If anyone should have received the faculty to ordain it would be them.

Edit: it seems to have been possible in Church history, at least in the West. So I will soften my stance, but I contend that it is extremely unlikely, given the currents in sacramental theology and ecclesiology, to happen again in any of the 23 Catholic Churches.

I may be wrong, I’m not infallible. But I was basing these comments on a book on sacramental theology that I thought was both excellent and, more importantly, faithful. The book was “The Sacramental Mystery” by Paul Haffner, and it was a textbook in my seminary. Pages 184-185, which were the ones where he said this stuff, can be previewed here: books.google.com/books?id=Q-2CRzlijgwC&pg=PA184

Let me know what you think. Like I said, I’m not infallible, and neither is that author. But he seems very confident and his book is quite faithful to the Magisterium, basing his explanations on papal documents and conciliar decisions from both pre- and post- Vatican II. (Plus, he frequently argues explicitly against the errors of modernism, and calls it by that name. That, to me, says he’s orthodox.)

 

[Gorgias]

I may be wrong, I’m not infallible. But I was basing these comments on a book on sacramental theology that I thought was both excellent and, more importantly, faithful. The book was “The Sacramental Mystery” by Paul Haffner, and it was a textbook in my seminary. Pages 184-185, which were the ones where he said this stuff, can be previewed here: books.google.com/books?id=Q-2CRzlijgwC&pg=PA184

Here’s the thing, though: Haffner quotes the Summa Theologiae, but he’s quoting the supplement, which wasn’t written by Aquinas, but by a friend. So, I think that Haffner’s on shaky grounds here. Moreover, in his other examples, he always demonstrates ordinations to minor orders by abbots, although he refers to them simply as ‘priests’. It’s debatable that such ordinations were legitimate, but that’s besides the point: if the ability to ordain was only for minor orders, then that ability no longer exists – the minor orders have been abrogated, and are replaced by ministries (lector and acolyte). Therefore, there is no longer even the possibility of delegation to priests, even if it had been possible in the past.

 

[FrDavid96]

Okay, so I just made this account because I thought of a hypothetical question regarding ordination. Normally I find the answer to my questions on other peoples threads but I could not find one for this question. This is my first post so bear with me.

Let’s say that Francis puts out a Bull (infallible) that defines the words that are needed for an ordination to be valid. They are, just for simplicity, “I make you a priest so that you may forgive sins” Francis says that more than just these words are needed and that other parts are just as important, then he lists some of the things that are important. Now these EXACT words MUST be said in the ceremony in THIS ORDER. Francis then dies and another man is elected pope. He puts out a document that says that the words are changing from “I make you a priest so that you may forgive sins” to "I make you a priest to forgive sins " Further he changes and/or removes about half of the form of the sacrament including some of the parts that are listed by Francis as important. The Reason he gives for changing the words and form are this is more accurate to what Francis meant when he put out the Bull. Would the sacrament be valid or would there be a reasonable doubt about the new form?
Just for giggles, what do you think?

The reason why such a thing could never happen is because a pope cannot change what is required for valid ordination. He can articulate it, explain it, judge it, even revise the form, but he cannot change what makes the sacrament valid.

For the same reason that Bl John Paul II could not change valid-ordination to permit women to be ordained, no future pope could ever change valid-ordination by adding a requirement of certain words. He can require certain words for a licit ordination, but not for a valid one.

The same works from the opposite perspective. No pope could ever remove a condition for validity. So, he could never do away with the requirement of the laying on of hands, or the requirement to do what the Church does.

Think of it this way: if some pope were to say that “I make you a priest…” is required for validity, then that would make all past ordinations invalid–including the pope’s own ordination. That would not make any sense, and therefore would be beyond the competence of any pope. In fact, it would draw a big circle because it would make the pope’s ordination invalid, making his papal pronouncement invalid, since his pronouncement was invalid, his ordination was valid, his pronouncement was then valid again, making his ordination once again invalid. Popes cannot do what is logically impossible.

It’s an interesting question though.
I think the topic itself could make for some good conversation, but the specific scenario that you’re using as an example just doesn’t make sense. Maybe a different scenario could prompt more conversation.

 

[PacoG]

Let’s say that Francis puts out a Bull (infallible) that defines the words that are needed for an ordination to be valid.

I think you don’t really understand the concept of infallibility. The Pope speaks infallibly when:

1. He address the Universal Church (both East and West);
2. From the Chair of Peter;
3. On the matter of faith and morals;
4. And he invokes the charism of infallibility.

The form of ordination isn’t one of those things. It would be a matter of discipline where he would be exercising his authority as head of the Roman Rite. The Eastern Churches and Eastern Rites have their own ordination rites.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think you don’t really understand the concept of infallibility. The Pope speaks infallibly when:

1. He address the Universal Church (both East and West);
2. From the Chair of Peter;
3. On the matter of faith and morals;
4. And he invokes the charism of infallibility.

The form of ordination isn’t one of those things. It would be a matter of discipline where he would be exercising his authority as head of the Roman Rite. The Eastern Churches and Eastern Rites have their own ordination rites.

hmmmm…

Both yes and no.

The scenario itself is just not possible, for a number of reasons, but it does present some legitimate questions.

Can a pope speak infallibly about Ordination?

First, the no.
When popes approve, revise, or even reject changes to the rite of Ordination, those changes affect only the Roman rite, and are a matter of discipline, not dogma.

In the particular scenario, the pope is acting arbitrarily and capriciously, so what is presented in the question would not be a subject of an infallible declaration.

So, that gets a “no” answer.

On the other hand…

The question of “what constitutes a valid ordination?” is one that does go to matters of dogma.

A pope can speak infallibly about the form of Ordination, since he can speak infallibly about what constitutes valid intent, or what constitutes a valid recipient.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html See the Commentary, paragraph 11.
also vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

So, we already know that the Church does infallibly teach certain truths about the sacrament of Ordination.

If we reverse the question and ask “is it the fallible (ie subject to error) teaching of the Church that the laying-on-of-hands is not optional, but necessary, in Ordination?” the answer would be “no, it is not a fallible teaching, but an infallible one.”

 

[dmar198]

Here’s the thing, though: Haffner quotes the Summa Theologiae, but he’s quoting the supplement, which wasn’t written by Aquinas, but by a friend. So, I think that Haffner’s on shaky grounds here. Moreover, in his other examples, he always demonstrates ordinations to minor orders by abbots, although he refers to them simply as ‘priests’. It’s debatable that such ordinations were legitimate, but that’s besides the point: if the ability to ordain was only for minor orders, then that ability no longer exists – the minor orders have been abrogated, and are replaced by ministries (lector and acolyte). Therefore, there is no longer even the possibility of delegation to priests, even if it had been possible in the past.

Well that seems like a very reasonable response to Haffner’s examples. Thank you for dealing with the evidence so carefully.

God bless!