Priests as extraordinary ministers of Holy Orders

[ASimpleSinner]

An abbot is equivalent to a Bishop, so an abbot ordaining priests would not be an issue.

I don’t wish to seem contentious either, but having roughly similar jurisdictional authority is something different than having the same sacramental authority as an abbot.

An abbor has authority by virtue of being elected abbot. Under this ecclesiology I see the same or similar praxis as German Lutherans who used elected priests to ordain new ministers. I simply don’t see how appointment to the office of abbot precludes the necessity of sacramental consecration to the episcopate.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I found the following on the USCCB website (see here), from googling the “de Reeper” article:

1. How undefined the distinction between presbyters and bishops was can also be seen occasionally on the practical level, where there were some striking instances of presbyters exercising powers typical of bishops when the occasion called for it. For example, two eighth-century missionaries, Willehad and Liudger,(297) whom Charlemagne had sent to convert the Saxons on his eastern border, ordained clergy for the churches they founded, long before they themselves received consecration as bishops. In the fifteenth century, three different popes delegated the power to ordain to abbots who had not been ordained to the episcopate; in two of those cases, the privilege included ordination to the priesthood.(298) For many medieval theologians, the limiting of ordination to bishops was associated with the episcopal dignity, but not with orders as such. After the introduction of pseudo-Dionysius’ De ecclesiastica hierarchia into Latin theology in the early thirteenth century, Dionysius’ pervasive arrangement of everything in patterns of three seems to have deepened the sense of a distinction among the orders of deacon, presbyter, and bishop.(299)

 

[AJV]

I found the following on the USCCB website (see here), from googling the “de Reeper” article:

1. How undefined the distinction between presbyters and bishops was can also be seen occasionally on the practical level, where there were some striking instances of presbyters exercising powers typical of bishops when the occasion called for it. For example, two eighth-century missionaries, Willehad and Liudger,(297) whom Charlemagne had sent to convert the Saxons on his eastern border, ordained clergy for the churches they founded, long before they themselves received consecration as bishops. In the fifteenth century, three different popes delegated the power to ordain to abbots who had not been ordained to the episcopate; in two of those cases, the privilege included ordination to the priesthood.(298) For many medieval theologians, the limiting of ordination to bishops was associated with the episcopal dignity, but not with orders as such. After the introduction of pseudo-Dionysius’ De ecclesiastica hierarchia into Latin theology in the early thirteenth century, Dionysius’ pervasive arrangement of everything in patterns of three seems to have deepened the sense of a distinction among the orders of deacon, presbyter, and bishop.(299)

JustLurking- if you would like to read de Reeper’s article, pm me your email address.

 

[jbebeau]

While the question of the nature of Sacrament of Orders has been debated. What is clear is that in modern times only bishops can ordain; the authority given to Abbots having long since been recinded. While it may be possible for a priest to ordain in extraordinary circumstances, this authority needs to come from the pope. Clear this has not been done in centuries. For an abbot to ordain, as Br. Rich has mentioned, he must possess episcopal dignity. Because you are equuivelent in law to a bishop doesn’t make you one. The administrator of a diocese is equivelent in law to a bishop but is still not permitted to ordain, not is he permitted to consecrate the sacred Chrism on Holy Thursday.

Even the abbot of an abbey nullis was required to get bishop to ordain his subjects to sacred orders. This existing in Canada until 1998.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The article was detailed and interesting, and now I’ve got tons more questions. The article said:

It has become clear now that by virtue of the sacrament of Order the priest receives the capability to administer all the sacraments, although the Church withholds the necessary authorization with regard to the administration of some of the sacraments.

[Edited]

 

[Just_Lurking]

In another thread (see here), some posters seem to attach little or no importance to a pope’s actions that involve his doctrinal understandings and misunderstandings, as long as those papal actions do not involve the actual teaching of doctrine.

In that attitude, I have three questions. First, is it possible that Popes Boniface IX and Martin V had no ability whatsoever to allow priests to perform ordinations? This would mean that the medieval ordinations so performed by those priests were actually completely invalid.

Second, if that is indeed possible, is it allowable or acceptable for Catholics today to believe that this happened? That is, can Catholics today legitimately believe that Boniface IX and Martin V misunderstood the doctrine pertaining to the possible ministers of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and so abetted the simulation of that sacrament, not to mention the multitude of invalid masses celebrated by those who were invalidly ordained?

Third, if it is allowable for today’s Catholics to believe that Boniface IX and Martin V were in error, was it also allowable for medieval Catholics who were alive during their pontificates to believe that as well?

 

[Digitonomy]

I have three questions.
First, is it possible that Popes Boniface IX and Martin V had no ability whatsoever to allow priests to perform ordinations?

Second, if that is indeed possible, is it allowable or acceptable for Catholics today to believe that this happened?

Third, was it also allowable for medieval Catholics who were alive during their pontificates to believe that as well?

I don’t see why not for any of your three questions.

The Church may be divinely established, but it is run by men and thus fallible in most of its actions.

 

[AJV]

In another thread (see here), some posters seem to attach little or no importance to a pope’s actions that involve his doctrinal understandings and misunderstandings, as long as those papal actions do not involve the actual teaching of doctrine.

In that attitude, I have three questions. First, is it possible that Popes Boniface IX and Martin V had no ability whatsoever to allow priests to perform ordinations? This would mean that the medieval ordinations so performed by those priests were actually completely invalid.

Second, if that is indeed possible, is it allowable or acceptable for Catholics today to believe that this happened? That is, can Catholics today legitimately believe that Boniface IX and Martin V misunderstood the doctrine pertaining to the possible ministers of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and so abetted the simulation of that sacrament, not to mention the multitude of invalid masses celebrated by those who were invalidly ordained?

Third, if it is allowable for today’s Catholics to believe that Boniface IX and Martin V were in error, was it also allowable for medieval Catholics who were alive during their pontificates to believe that as well?

As regards the decree Laudabilem, I have read that there is a dispute among canonists about the exact timing of the lapse into heresy - whether it was before or after the marriage.

To your other questions:

1. entirely possible and there were/are theologians and canonists who held/hold this. However, the thorny issue here involves the fact that there are 3 of them. One can be easily dismissed but 3 not so easily. The second is of course, because it involves the sacraments.
2. Yes.