The Words of Ordination have changed

[JD27076]

I asked my parish priest if the words of ordination have changed, he said yes. At this point I shocked.

Can anyone tell me the old essential words of Ordination and the new essential words of ordination?

Well, I suspect the essential words of ordination should be the same, at least.

I guess my main question is, what were the main changes, and how are they justified?

Thanks!

 

[CB_Catholic]

I asked my parish priest if the words of ordination have changed, he said yes. At this point I shocked.

Can anyone tell me the old essential words of Ordination and the new essential words of ordination?

Well, I suspect the essential words of ordination should be the same, at least.

I guess my main question is, what were the main changes, and how are they justified?

Thanks!

Justified?

 

[Skeptic92]

I asked my parish priest if the words of ordination have changed, he said yes. At this point I shocked.

Can anyone tell me the old essential words of Ordination and the new essential words of ordination?

Well, I suspect the essential words of ordination should be the same, at least.

I guess my main question is, what were the main changes, and how are they justified?

Thanks!

Justified? “Roma Locusta Est, Causa Finita Est”
Rome has said it is valid, therefore it is valid. The exact changes though I can not comment on either personally or theologically as I have yet to study the major Sacramental Theology behind the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[JimG]

It’s been a long time since I looked up the ordination liturgy. But if I recall correctly, there are no essential words to ordination. The sacrament is conferred by the laying on of hands (with the intent to confer Holy Orders)–with no accompanying prayer. The laying on of hands is essential. The rest is non-essential.

 

[curlycool89]

It’s been a long time since I looked up the ordination liturgy. But if I recall correctly, there are no essential words to ordination. The sacrament is conferred by the laying on of hands (with the intent to confer Holy Orders)–with no accompanying prayer. The laying on of hands is essential. The rest is non-essential.

I believe the prayer of ordination might be necessary, but I could be wrong there.

This page from the Archdiocese of Toronto says that “Once this [ordination] prayer is concluded, the men being ordained are priests”

 

[Actaeon]

Justified? “Roma Locusta Est, Causa Finita Est”
Rome has said it is valid, therefore it is valid. The exact changes though I can not comment on either personally or theologically as I have yet to study the major Sacramental Theology behind the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

+1

I always wonder why some people feel that Rome and/or the Holy Father need to justify themselves to us…

 

[Skeptic92]

+1

I always wonder why some people feel that Rome and/or the Holy Father need to justify themselves to us…

The thing also is, if the texts were faulty in a way that makes them of questionable validity they would have been received by Rome. Yes we need to worry about translations, however once Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.

I do agree, once Rome has stated the texts are Valid we are to receive them as valid. The Holy Father wouldn’t say this on a whim and it be received by the College of Bishops, he has more then enough Theologians (How many of the Bishops are Theologians? I’m sure Theology is the major doctorate in the College of Bishops) around him to assess validity of any Sacramental rite.

 

[Spirithound]

…and how are they justified?

The Church is incapable of promulgating invalid sacraments.

 

[JimG]

I believe the prayer of ordination might be necessary, but I could be wrong there.

This page from the Archdiocese of Toronto says that “Once this [ordination] prayer is concluded, the men being ordained are priests”

Thanks for the reference. I have also found the same information elsewhere. The sole matter of the sacrament is the imposition of hands. The form is the words prescribed by the Church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Think of it perhaps in another way, in the context of the broader Universal Church - with traditions of both West and East, and seven major Rites.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have their own rites of ordination - different rituals, prayers, etc. Yet, those rites of ordination still yield one thing in common - a Catholic priest.

The common denominator is the consecration by a bishop via laying of the hands, as was done in Apostolic times.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I asked my parish priest if the words of ordination have changed, he said yes. At this point I shocked.

Can anyone tell me the old essential words of Ordination and the new essential words of ordination?

Well, I suspect the essential words of ordination should be the same, at least.

I guess my main question is, what were the main changes, and how are they justified?

Thanks!

It has changed in the past, it can change in the future. Don’t fuss too much about it.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I believe the prayer of ordination might be necessary, but I could be wrong there.

This page from the Archdiocese of Toronto says that “Once this [ordination] prayer is concluded, the men being ordained are priests”

From my friend’s ordination program from this year:

Laying on of Hands
The Bishop confers ordination by laying his hands on the heads of [the candidates]. This ritual is done in silence. …]

Prayer of Consecration
[The candidates] kneel before the Bishop and he prays the prayer of consecration over them.

My understanding is they’re ordained by the laying on of hands, and then consecrated immediately after all the priests lay their hands on the candidates.

 

[Vico]

1947*Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.*Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM

1968*Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, his famulis tuis Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eorum Spiritum sanctitatis; acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant, censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent.

*Grant, we pray you, Almighty Father, to these your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the Spirit of holiness; may they obtain as a gift from you, 0 God, the office of second dignity, and by the example of their behaviour, may they provide a rule of conduct.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ORDIN.HTM

 

[FrBryan]

The sole matter of the sacrament is the imposition of hands. The form is the words prescribed by the Church.

This is exactly right. The theologians of the middle ages, lead by Aquinas, categorized the sacraments according to form and matter. Both are necessary for validity. Here is what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says:

Can. 1009 §1. The orders are the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate.

§2. They are conferred by the imposition of hands and the consecratory prayer which the liturgical books prescribe for the individual grades.

God Bless!

Fr. Bryan

 

[Digitonomy]

"CB Catholic:

Justified?

Justified? “Roma Locusta Est, Causa Finita Est”
Rome has said it is valid, therefore it is valid.

Actaeon:

I always wonder why some people feel that Rome and/or the Holy Father need to justify themselves to us…

It seems as though some are attacking the OP for asking the question, rather than giving the reason for the change in wording, which is what he sought. There may be members for whom any change in a rite is proof that the See of Peter is occupied by the antichrist. However, I think it’s usually best to make charitable assumptions about such questions, and those who pose them.

Skeptic92:

The Holy Father wouldn’t say this on a whim…

I agree, so presumably he felt there were good reasons that justified the change. Usually the pope likes to share these things. Vico’s links do a pretty good job, but I’m going to excerpt the relevant points so people won’t have to search for themselves.

From the Apostolic Constitution approving new rites of ordination, from 1968:

“both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium)…

…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. For the better attainment of this end it has been judged opportune to take from the ancient sources the prayer of consecration found in what is called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the beginning of the third century and which is still preserved, in great part, in the liturgy of Ordination of the Copts and of the Western Syrians. In this way the agreement of both Eastern and Western tradition with regard to the apostolic task of the bishops will be borne witness to in the act of Ordination itself…

In presbyteral Ordination, as it is found in the Roman Pontifical, the mission and the grace of the presbyter as coadjutor of the episcopal Order is most clearly described. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to reduce the whole rite; which, before this was divided into a number of parts, to a greater unity, and to place the .central part of the Ordination, that is, the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration, in a more vivid light…

In the Ordination to the diaconate, however, a few changes will have to be made, paying attention both to the instructions recently given about the diaconate as a special and permanent grade of the hierarchy in the Latin Church, and to a greater simplicity and clarity of the rites…

 

[Digitonomy]

if I recall correctly, there are no essential words to ordination. The sacrament is conferred by the laying on of hands (with the intent to confer Holy Orders)–with no accompanying prayer. The laying on of hands is essential. The rest is non-essential.

I realize this was already corrected, but just to address it more completely from Pope Paul’s Apostolic Constitution, and to supplement the formula Vico posted for presbyterial ordination with that of episcopal and diaconal ordination:

[Episcopal Ordination, 1968]
The form consists of the words of the same prayer of consecration, of which the following pertain to the essence of the rite, and hence are required for validity:

“And now pour forth on this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit, whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom be gave to the holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, unto the glory and unending praise of your name.”

(Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui) .

[Episcopal Ordination, 1947]
The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.”

“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”]

[Diaconal Ordination, 1968]
The form consists of the words of the same prayer of consecration, of which the following pertain to the essence of the rite, and hence are required for validity:

“Send forth upon them, 0 Lord, we pray, the Holy Spirit, by whom they may be strengthened by the gift of your seven-fold grace in the faithful carrying out of the work of service.”

(Emitte in eos Domine, quaesumus, Spiriturn Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii fideliter exsequendi munere septiformis tuae gratiae roborentur).

[Diaconal Ordination, 1947]
The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur.”

“Send forth upon him, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Holy Spirit, by which the work of the ministry in the faithful discharge of your sevenfold grace, the gift of Thy strength.”]*

*This last is from Google Translate.

 

[superamazingman]

Actually, the prayer of ordination is an essential part of the ordination, required for validity. Laying on of hands will not do it alone.

 

[CB_Catholic]

It seems as though some are attacking the OP for asking the question, rather than giving the reason for the change in wording, which is what he sought. There may be members for whom any change in a rite is proof that the See of Peter is occupied by the antichrist. However, I think it’s usually best to make charitable assumptions about such questions, and those who pose them.I agree, so presumably he felt there were good reasons that justified the change. Usually the pope likes to share these things. Vico’s links do a pretty good job, but I’m going to excerpt the relevant points so people won’t have to search for themselves.

From the Apostolic Constitution approving new rites of ordination, from 1968:

I did not attack the poster–that is an unwarranted accusation. I questioned the use of the word “justified”. I am not assuming any motives of the OP.

Catholics do not usually ask for justification for actions by the Church, although they may want an explanation. Thus the questioning of the use of the word. They are two different things.