Schismatic bishops' authorization to perform ordination

[Just_Lurking]

In another thread (see here), it was argued based on historical evidence 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.” In particular, the pope can authorize priests to perform ordination, and he can also withdraw this authorization.

So, if the Church, i.e., the pope, has the ability to grant and withdraw the authorization to perform the sacraments, why don’t popes just withdraw the authorization of schismatic bishops to perform ordination?

 

[rwoehmke]

Priests are not the ordinary ministers of ordination so that it can be given and withdrawn, while it is in the very essence of being a Bishop to be able to ordain priests and new Bishops. Although Bishops have this charism by their very nature, they still must gain authorization from Rome to ordain Bishops licitly, i.e. Rome choses who will be raised to the rank of Bishop.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Priests are not the ordinary ministers of ordination so that it can be given and withdrawn, while it is in the very essence of being a Bishop to be able to ordain priests and new Bishops. Although Bishops have this charism by their very nature, they still must gain authorization from Rome to ordain Bishops licitly, i.e. Rome choses who will be raised to the rank of Bishop.

Priests are the ordinary ministers of confession, yet the Church has the power to withdraw their authorization to do so, so that any absolution they give is not only illicit but invalid. Why is ordination any different?

 

[oblsbdc]

The idea that a presbyter (priest) has the fullness of sacramental powers is based upon a Medieval theology of Orders. The bishop of Rome, juridically removed what was termed an ‘obex’ from the priest thus allowing him to exercise all sacramental powers - i.e. be a bishop.

This idea of Order however is not how the Church Fathers understood the Episcopacy and it was clarified in the Second Vatican Councils document Lumen Gentium. The council authoritatively taught that priests recieve all sacramental powers only through the delegation of the bishop (a priests recieves permission to celebrate all the sacraments he does/ as does a deacon)- Thus a bishop can determine what, how, when, a priest may perform sacraments.

A bishop however recieves the “fullness of priesthood” independant of any other agent. In a sense, he is the only true priest in a diocese. He is to act in communion with the larger church in the exercise of his powers - but Rome cannot take away his sacramental powers. Thus, schismatic bishops by virtue of thier own power can ordain, illicitly but validly, as they are separated from communion with Rome. That is to say, using the proper form and matter they can ordain priests or other bishops but the act is illicit - that is, it becomes an issue of a juridical nature - not a sacramental one. Since the supreme pontiff has immediate and universal juridical powers a bishop can be exommunicated, removed from a diocese, etc., but his sacramental powers are not controlled by Rome per se.

 

[AJV]

In another thread (see here), it was argued based on historical evidence 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.” In particular, the pope can authorize priests to perform ordination, and he can also withdraw this authorization.

So, if the Church, i.e., the pope, has the ability to grant and withdraw the authorization to perform the sacraments, why don’t popes just withdraw the authorization of schismatic bishops to perform ordination?

Remember, this is a theological opinion. As Fr. de Reeper himself mentioned, the “certa et communis” view of most modern theologians of his day was different. I would argue that it is even more certain and common, if not greater, in our day, because of the pronouncements since that time. There is much to say in favour of sacramentality of the Episcopate. I would also add as a secondary, slightly minor reason, that it is ‘compatible’ with a lot of other theological systems as well.

In any case, even according to it, this papal authorization ‘works’ in the case of the priest only. The Episcopal consecration enables ‘unfettered access’. Thus according to this theory, a priest’s power to ordain can be “unlocked” in two ways - permanently, through the conferral of the Episcopate or for a determined period of time via papal authorisation.

You see of course, the tough questions that can arise through this such as “why in the world do we need bishops then?” Not that they don;t have an answer. But they are difficult - St. Robert Bellarmine even felt that calling the sacramentality of the Episcopate into question could undermine the sacrament of Holy Orders itself.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The council authoritatively taught that priests recieve all sacramental powers only through the delegation of the bishop (a priests recieves permission to celebrate all the sacraments he does/ as does a deacon)- Thus a bishop can determine what, how, when, a priest may perform sacraments.

But can’t a priest, once ordained, always validly consecrate the Eucharist, even after the bishop has withdrawn all sacramental delegation/permission. I thought that was the idea behind a “black mass”, where a fallen priest consecrates the Eucharist to be used in satanic worship.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In any case, even according to it, this papal authorization ‘works’ in the case of the priest only. The Episcopal consecration enables ‘unfettered access’.

In another thread (see here), I argued forcefully that the Church has yet to rule on the issue of whether the ordination of women to the diaconate is prohibited by divine law or merely by church law. So consider the following reasoning:

Canon law invalidates the attempted ordination of women to the diaconate. Thus it is either the case that (1) the ordination of women to the diaconate is prohibited by divine law; or (2) the Church has the authority to restrict by church law the validity of ordinations performed by bishops. Since (1) is a matter of open theological investigation, it seems to me that (2) must likewise be an undecided issue.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Lumen Gentium 21 says:

And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.

This does seem to definitively settle the question that the episcopacy is a sacrament. (I would say infallibly, except that I’ve read that Vatican II made no infallible declarations.)

Lumen Gentium 27 also says:

This power, which [bishops] personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful.

So I guess the question is whether restricting the ability to perform ordination is one of those certain limits.

 

[AJV]

Lumen Gentium 27 also says:

This power, which [bishops] personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful.

So I guess the question is whether restricting the ability to perform ordination is one of those certain limits.

But (27) seems to be talking about the "governance"i.e. regarding jurisdiction not order