V
visigrad
Guest
Can anyone tel me if you have heard that in extraordinary circumstances that a pries can ordain another priest ie. during the communist regime ??
Thanks
Thanks
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
This is one of those “age old questions.” Some early Christian theologians (even as late as St. Thomas Aquinas) believed that it might be possible. The position of the Church however is that it cannot be done. By the time communism appeared on the scene, it had been well established that only a bishop can ordain a priest. There’s a remote possibility that it just might be valid, but that’s very very remote. That’s why the Church never allows it even in the most extreme circumstances. If such stories surface, it’s more likely that the first priest was secretly ordained a bishop first. That did happen.Can anyone tel me if you have heard that in extraordinary circumstances that a pries can ordain another priest ie. during the communist regime ??
Thanks
V
visigrad
Guest
Thank you Father. I had never heard of such a thing till yesterday, from someone whose undertanding I question. Iam most grateful
F
FrDavid96
Guest
visigrad,Thank you Father. I had never heard of such a thing till yesterday, from someone whose undertanding I question. Iam most grateful
To put it into perspective, remember that for Catholics living behind the iron curtain, their lives were very much a thing of fear and secrecy. They had to endure a lot to practice their faith and that meant that many things happened which appeared to be one thing on the surface, but were quite different in reality. Some “parishes” did not even know who their priest was–the entire congregation would say all the words of the Mass so that no one could learn who the real priest was. We have to keep in mind their reluctance to openly admit what happened even after the fall of communism because that fear was so ingrained into them. That means that many “stories” were told, and continue to be told. No doubt there were many bishops and priests ordained who are known only to God (and a very select few, who themselves might not have survived very long).
D
dans0622
Guest
Personally, I do not know of any situations where a priest (presbyter) validly ordained another man to be a priest. But, the 1917 Code spoke of a Bishop as the “ordinary” minister of ordination (c. 951) while the 1983 Code simply says “a Bishop is the minister” and not “only a bishop” (c. 1012). The omission of the word “only” was the result of a conscious decision of those who revised the Code. So, there is left open the possibility of one without the “episcopal character” validly ordaining another as a priest (or deacon, I suppose), if he is authorized by particular law or Papal indult.
The Eastern Code, however, says “only a bishop” can ordain (c. 744).
I would say it is only a theoretical possibility, in the Latin Church, since there are no such particular laws or indults, as far as I know. And, all the liturgical law and rubrics speak of a bishop as the one who ordains.
Dan
The Eastern Code, however, says “only a bishop” can ordain (c. 744).
I would say it is only a theoretical possibility, in the Latin Church, since there are no such particular laws or indults, as far as I know. And, all the liturgical law and rubrics speak of a bishop as the one who ordains.
Dan
A
AJV
Guest
But that is only to leave open the possibility and such ordinations, aside from the canonical penalties, would be considered invalid currently. Moreover, since most theologians agree that the Episcopate is truly a sacrament, it seems very unlikely.Personally, I do not know of any situations where a priest (presbyter) validly ordained another man to be a priest. But, the 1917 Code spoke of a Bishop as the “ordinary” minister of ordination (c. 951) while the 1983 Code simply says “a Bishop is the minister” and not “only a bishop” (c. 1012). The omission of the word “only” was the result of a conscious decision of those who revised the Code. So, there is left open the possibility of one without the “episcopal character” validly ordaining another as a priest (or deacon, I suppose), if he is authorized by particular law or Papal indult.
The Eastern Code, however, says “only a bishop” can ordain (c. 744).
I would say it is only a theoretical possibility, in the Latin Church, since there are no such particular laws or indults, as far as I know. And, all the liturgical law and rubrics speak of a bishop as the one who ordains.
Dan
C
Cluny
Guest
This is one of the satanic fantasies of Lucien Pulvermacher, who styles himself Pope Pius XIII.
D
dans0622
Guest
He’s still alive? And, he’s done some “ordaining?”This is one of the satanic fantasies of Lucien Pulvermacher, who styles himself Pope Pius XIII.
Dan
C
Cluny
Guest
He’s still alive? And, he’s done some "ordaining?"
He had a priest that joined him to mash him in an act of pseudo-consecration to the episcopacy.
Then he returned the favor.
All either did by that act was to lose the grace of the priesthood.
This man styled “Cardinal Bateman” eventually left him. I don’t know where he went, though.
Later Pulvermacher mashed a man, ostensibly to become a priest for the “Melchite” rite, as he was married. The man in question (I wrote him) knows nothing about Eastern liturgics and has no desire to learn.
He had a priest that joined him to mash him in an act of pseudo-consecration to the episcopacy.
Then he returned the favor.
All either did by that act was to lose the grace of the priesthood.
This man styled “Cardinal Bateman” eventually left him. I don’t know where he went, though.
Later Pulvermacher mashed a man, ostensibly to become a priest for the “Melchite” rite, as he was married. The man in question (I wrote him) knows nothing about Eastern liturgics and has no desire to learn.
C
Cluny
Guest
CORRECTION!
I did some research. Actually Bateman was NOT a priest.
First Pulvermacher mashed him as a priest.
Then Bateman mashed Pulvermacher bishop.
The Pulvermacher mashed Bateman as a bishop.
All that happened is that Pulvermacher deposed himself from the priesthood.
Bateman has since set up a site in which he talks about “sedevantist catholics.”
That’s like talking about neat garbage–it’s an oxymoron.
I did some research. Actually Bateman was NOT a priest.
First Pulvermacher mashed him as a priest.
Then Bateman mashed Pulvermacher bishop.
The Pulvermacher mashed Bateman as a bishop.
All that happened is that Pulvermacher deposed himself from the priesthood.
Bateman has since set up a site in which he talks about “sedevantist catholics.”
That’s like talking about neat garbage–it’s an oxymoron.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Deposed himself from the priesthood? Can you explain this a bit. Also what is “mashed”, I can guess by the context but this is a usage I have never heard before so I want to make sure.CORRECTION!
I did some research. Actually Bateman was NOT a priest.
First Pulvermacher mashed him as a priest.
Then Bateman mashed Pulvermacher bishop.
The Pulvermacher mashed Bateman as a bishop.
All that happened is that Pulvermacher deposed himself from the priesthood.
Bateman has since set up a site in which he talks about “sedevantist catholics.”
That’s like talking about neat garbage–it’s an oxymoron.
No validly ordained priest ever loses the priesthood. Even when excommunicated they are still a priest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.