New Rite of Ordination Valid?

[Donald_Ramsey]

Please help me with answers for my Traddie friends who insist that the new Rite of Priestly Ordination is invalid because it deletes all of the specific prayers of the Old Rite of Ordination? I need advice, and quick! Thanks

 

[redkim]

Donald Ramsey:

Please help me with answers for my Traddie friends who insist that the new Rite of Priestly Ordination is invalid because it deletes all of the specific prayers of the Old Rite of Ordination? I need advice, and quick! Thanks

First off, if they don’t believe that it is valid, then they are not simply “traditional” they may be schismatic.

If the pope says it’s valid, it’s valid.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

The Rite of Ordination didn’t even exist in a standardized form when Paul went around appointing presbyters (priests). The important thing is the action of the laying on of hands. That is how and when the sacrament of ordination is conferred.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Donald,

It has never been held that the prayer of consecration must enumerate the presbyteral functions. There has been a negative expression of this when Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid – but his reasoning when far beyond the simply enumaration of functions. The form of ordination is the intention or the bishop and the laying on of hands (or, at least, so sayeth Pope Pius XII). As long as that remains the rite is valid. Where the Anglican issue devolved was the intention of the bishop.

Deacon Ed

 

[JimG]

Yes, the sacrament of ordination is conferred by the intention of the Bishop and the laying on of hands. The “prayers” are only ancillary, and not necessary to the sacrament.

JimG

 

[misericordie]

redkim:

First off, if they don’t believe that it is valid, then they are not simply “traditional” they may be schismatic.

If the pope says it’s valid, it’s valid.

True, they are not traditional, they seem to be schismatic.
One must only stick with the traditional groups like the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and the Ecclesia Dei Comission. Be very careful everyone of schismatic groups such as the society of saint pius x, and especially the ultra schismatic society of saint pius V. Even the lay members have fanatical ideas, and don’t accept the 16 documents of Vatican II, nor the New Catechism, nor even Any canonization(pius V society) done by any pope past Pius XII.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Donald Ramsey:

Please help me with answers for my Traddie friends who insist that the new Rite of Priestly Ordination is invalid because it deletes all of the specific prayers of the Old Rite of Ordination? I need advice, and quick! Thanks

If it isn’t - then those particular traditionialists are in effect saying that the Church has been able to nullify a sacrament for all time to come.​

It’s valid.

It may not be as specific in stating what is imparted as the 1947(?) rite is, but, that specificity is not essential for validity. There is no perfect parallel with the grounds on which Leo XIII found that Anglican orders were “null & void”; because the tradition of the Church by which the Church “declared its mind” in ordiaining a priesthood to offer a visible, permanent, and objective sacrifice, had not died out in the CC after 1965. The "mind of the Church* could still, even after the reformed rite came into use, be expressed through a rite that was less precise than that preceding it. It was still alive to be expressed.

Moreover, the new rite does not explicitly reject the doctrines formerly held - the case “in possession”, is that which favours the thesis that the Church is still holding the same faith. Short of an explicit, prolonged, deliberate, unambiguous rejection of the Catholic beliefs regarding the priesthood, it will continue to be “in possession”.

So until a Pope approves a rite (or other means) by which the Catholic Faith is delivered, or adheres to a heresy, or enforces a heresy as Catholic doctrine, the presumption is that the Catholic faith is still being expressed and valid sacraments still conferred. ##

 

[Illini]

I read something some time ago about a related issue, regarding Anglican orders. Unfortunately, I do not remember where I found it, but it was written in the 1980’s when some misinterpreted a comment by a British Cardinal that Anglican orders might become valid.

According to the essay, the precise reason why Leo XIII declared the Anglican Orders invalid was that there was a defect of form and intention. In other words, Bishops using the new rite had no intention of conferring Holy Orders as understood by the Universal Church, but instead had a “native character and spirit.” The defect of form followed this intent by deliberately striking out those words that clearly conveyed the Catholic intent. Even later changes to the rite (including one that expressly refers to the power to forgive sins), were made in vain, because the intent was still lacking.

However, the “author” of the Anglican rite is not an individual or even a group of individuals. It is the Anglican Church. In theory, then, the Anglican Church could declare, without changing a single word of its rite, that it interprets and intends it to do what the Catholic Church intends, and not something else. The rite would then be valid (prospectively, and only by a validly ordained bishop).

An interesting theory, which has application to Donald’s problem. When Paul VI “changed” the rite, unlike the Anglicans, he did not intend to change the intent of the words, that is, to create a Catholic priest/bishop with the ability to absolve sins, confect the Eucharist, and do other functions proper to that state. (Apparently, the new rite also conforms to Pius XII’s requirements, which I must confess I have not read.) Thus, the new rite is valid, because both the intent of the ordaining Bishop and its manifestation in the prayer of ordination express the intent to confer Holy Orders as they are understood by the Church.

Hope these thoughts, which are similar to those in other posts, are helpful.

-Illini

 

[porthos11]

What the Church says is valid, is valid.

As a good priest here said, a community does not claim to be a true church because they have valid orders. Rather, we have valid orders because we are the true Church.

BTW, that’s also why I take confidence in the validity of Orthodox orders. Because they have valid Apostolic Succession and because the Catholic Church says so. But you won’t find the same texts in the Byzantine Ordination ritual as in the Tridentine ritual. That does not make them any less valid.

Sheesh. When will “because the Church says so” have any meaning for all who call themselves Catholic?:crying:

 

[JGC]

porthos11:

Sheesh. When will “because the Church says so” have any meaning for all who call themselves Catholic?:crying:

Quite so. If you cannot agree to a church position you are required to try to assent to it. Only if you cannot do so in a clear concience are you able to not follow a rule. This should be rare!

In any event the teaching of the church is the teaching of the church!
If you believe the position on a certain matter will change then fine. If the Holy Spirit wills it throught the sensus fidelem it will change. But the current position stands, you should try to assent to it and not pretend differently or indeed teach anyone differently!

Off high horse now…