Paul VI changed rite of Holy Orders: Now Invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baylee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

baylee

Guest
I have been trying to search the forums regarding this topic and have been having a difficult time finding exactly what I want to know.

I am learning that the Rite of Holy Orders was changed by Paul VI in 1968 and that these changes resulted in a rite that is very much like the Anglican rite. However, the Anglican rite was found invalid by a prior Pope (Leo?) I believe in the 1500’s. As a result, there is question whether Holy Orders has been valid since 1968 (and whether bishops/priests ordained under this new rite are really bishops/priests).

Is there any truth to this? Does anyone have a side-by-side comparison of these two rites (Anglican and current Catholic rite) so that one can actually see if they are the same? Why would a Catholic Pope change the words of a Catholic Sacrament to look a lot like a rite performed in the Anglican Church?
 
If the Church says a certain Rite is valid, then it is valid. The Rites of Sacraments have undergone changes throughout the history of the Church, and even today is practiced differently across the Rites (ie. Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.). So there is no one perfect formula for the Rite of any Sacrament. The Church can determine what Sacramental Rite is valid or not.
 
1ke said:
No.

And whatever website or person you are “learning” such false ideas from is a person or place to be avoided henceforth.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not so simple when your husband believes this. I need something substantial to convince him it is not true.
 
baylee said:
Unfortunately not so simple when your husband believes this. I need something substantial to convince him it is not true.
Click to expand...
Nothing will convince someone who doesn’t believe the facts. Paul VI did nothing of the sort, he was an amazing pope.
 
baylee said:
Unfortunately not so simple when your husband believes this. I need something substantial to convince him it is not true.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ORDIN.HTM
Since in the revision of the rite it was necessary either to add, delete or change certain things whether to restore to the texts greater fidelity to the ancient texts or to express better the effects of the sacrament, We have deemed it necessary, both to clear up all controversy and to obviate anxiety of conscience, to declare what things in the revised rite are to be said to pertain to the essence of the rite. Hence, in virtue of Our supreme Apostolic authority, We decree and determine the following, with regard to the matter and the form in the conferring of each sacrament.
Click to expand...
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM
  1. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. 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.
Click to expand...
 
ConstantineTG said:
***If the Church says a certain Rite is valid, then it is valid. *** The Rites of Sacraments have undergone changes throughout the history of the Church, and even today is practiced differently across the Rites (ie. Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.). So there is no one perfect formula for the Rite of any Sacrament. The Church can determine what Sacramental Rite is valid or not.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

I’ve read many posts on this subject, many people have tried to explain how Paul VI changed the rite of ordination. It would just form into an argument, but your post is perfectly written!

Exactly. Is one was a true Catholic, they WOULD accept what the Church teaches is valid and true, without question. Of course the ordination rites of Pope Paul are valid!👍
 
I too hope that someone can find a side-by-side comparison of the Anglican and current Catholic rites.

The Anglican rite was declared invalid by Leo XIII in the 1800’s actually. The new Anglican rite showed that the *intention * of the their rite was foreign to the Church’s. Pope Leo did not say those prayers could not be used in the Anglicans converted back. Now, Paul VI’s intentions were very different. You can agree with your husband that it was an imprudent decision of his; many important prayers were erased. None of the mandatory ones refer to the sacrifice o the Mass, and I don’t think any of them refer to confession (although I hope someone else has more information on this). But despite these deficiences, it is still valid
 
I’m not an expert on Canon Law, but I ask this in utter astonishment: How could you possibly be presumptuous enough to suggest that you know more about Canon Law than the Pope?

This is stuff of which schism ls made. Martin Luther would be proud.
 
But yes, I am confused on this issue as well. I hope someone on here has more answers for us. The Decree cited above from Paul VI on the new rites of ordination confuses me:

With regard to the presbyters the following statements from the Acts of the Second Vatican Council should be particularly recalled to mind: "Although presbyters do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, they are nevertheless united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity. By the power of the sacrament of Orders, and in the image of Christ, the eternal High Priest, (Heb. 5: 1-10; 7: 24. 9: 11-28), they are consecrated to preach the gospel, shepherd the faithful, and celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament."

Why is reference to the other sacraments not mentioned at all?

Paul VI: To these words must be added many other admirable points of doctrine concerning the apostolic succession of the bishops as well as their tasks and offices which, although they are already contained in the Order of episcopal consecration, ought to be expressed, it seems, in a better and more accurate way.

That was the Pope’s intention, but that was not what happened and with your husband I wonder why the Pope was so mislead. The deleted prayers can be found here:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_rite_invalid.php

But careful with the website, since it has many falsehoods, and even in this article, its complaint about the deletion of the word “ut” is absurd. But it sure got me thinking as well about what happened back in the 60. What was going through Paul VI’s mind. Does anyone know? Does anyone have the current prayers that are used for oridination?
 
Oh no, I may have confused Baylee even more by bringing up my own concerns. I am sorry. Anyone out there who can help us or point us in the direction of some resources to answer these questions about Paul VI??
 
ConstantineTG said:
If the Church says a certain Rite is valid, then it is valid. The Rites of Sacraments have undergone changes throughout the history of the Church, and even today is practiced differently across the Rites (ie. Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.). So there is no one perfect formula for the Rite of any Sacrament. The Church can determine what Sacramental Rite is valid or not.
Click to expand...
This answers the question perfectly. Perfectly.
 
From what I gathered, baylee’s husband doesn’t believe Paul VI was a valid Pope
 
Pay no attention to people who bring up this point. It’s absolutely silly on several counts.
  1. The Anglican rite was invalid for two important reasons.
a. The bishop does not have apostolic succession; therefore, he can’t ordain. Church of England made such a mess of things that we don’t know which bishops have succession and which do not. They certainly had valid bishops when they broke away, but then the crown started to appoint bishops too.

b. The intent of the anglican bishop is not the same as that of the Catholic bishop, because the Catholic bishop has in mind the three functions of the priest: preach, govern and sanctify.
  1. The words can change, but as long as you have the matter and form, the ordination is valid and if the pope approves it, it is also licit.
  2. Pope Paul VI was a Doctor of Canon Law. He had been the canonist for Pope Pius XII and held a few other titles too. It is pretty arrogant to believe that this man of letters and law would not know the law or to accuse him of being imprudent because the rite does not say what we would lke it to say. That call is for someone who can claim to be his equal in genius and authority to make.
  3. Pope Paul VI rewrote the code of Canon Law that was decreed in 1983. He died in 1978, but the work was done. Pope John Paul’s team came in and tied up the loose ends. The new rites were already approved in the new code, even though it had to wait five years after his death to be promulgated. It was his intention to change the rite and the law.
  4. Finally, what man creates, man can change. The Church cannot change the priesthood, but she can change the rites of ordination. Christ did not give us the rites. The term hierarchy is the Greek term that means to be governed by priests. As a bishop, the pope enjoys the fullness of the priesthood. Therefore, he is the supreme governor, which gives him the authority to change rites and words. There was no misleading here. He was presented with a ritual, he ordered it to be edited. It was edited. The final version was presented to him. He liked it and he signed off on it. That simple.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top