What would happen practically if a rogue Bishop ordained massive quantities of men?

[x1980x]

I admit that this is kind of a bizarre theoretical question.

What if a (Valid) Bishop were to go slightly off his rocker and go around Validly but Illicitly ordaining massive quantities of men to the Priesthood or to the Episcopacy? (e.g. ordaining every man who walks into a church on a specific day, or approaching random people in public and ordaining them.

E.g.:

Bishop approaches random guy on the subway.
Bishop: “Good morning I ordain you a Bishop…blah blah blah”
Random Guy: “Hey, get your hands off me! Police!”
Bishop reaches for another man…
etc.

What would be the practical effect of having lots of illicit but Valid Priests or Bishops running around parishes and dioceses?

E.g.:

“Father Murphy, as part of your transfer to the Diocese of New York, there’s something I have to tell you about St. Peter’s downtown.”
“What’s that?”
“Well, we had a little incident a few years ago with the former Bishop. Half the men sitting in the pews are actually fully Valid but illicit Bishops of the Catholic Church, and that fact has gotten into the heads of some of them.”

 

[Reepicheep]

Off hand thoughts:

1. It takes more than a sentence or two to validly ordain someone.
2. A person cannot be ordained against his own will.
3. I expect a lot of those “drive-by ordainees” would be non - catholics or non - christians.
4. If the bishop is not in his right mind the ordinations ought not to be valid.

 

[TimothyH]

What would be the practical effect of having lots of illicit but Valid Priests or Bishops running around parishes and dioceses?

We would finally know how the Anglicans felt about John Wesley.

-Tim-

 

[beth40n2]

It would be simular to the situation in China where there are many Bishops and Priests not recognized by the church.

 

[Corki]

Isn’t this sort of what happened with Archbishop Milingo? He didn’t just ordain men randomly but performed multiple illicit ordinations of priests AND bishops. Does anyone know the status of those priests?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I have a variation of this question: What if a bishop - “rogue” or otherwise, say in a remote area - decided to ordain men willing to be ordained (i.e., not against their will), and using the full Rite of Ordination (i.e., not just a sentence or two).

Version (a): The “matter” was unmarried males, but not men who went through anything like a conventional seminary education.

Version (b): The “matter” was married males - maybe permanent deacons, maybe not.

I’m thinking that the (a) ordinations would be both valid and licit, but a dumb thing to do.

I’m guessing that the (b) ordinations would be valid but illicit. That said, assume such men could validly - but illicitly - administer the sacraments, confect the Eucharist, etc.

Just wondering.

 

[Vico]

I admit that this is kind of a bizarre theoretical question.

What if a (Valid) Bishop were to go slightly off his rocker and go around Validly but Illicitly ordaining massive quantities of men to the Priesthood or to the Episcopacy? (e.g. ordaining every man who walks into a church on a specific day, or approaching random people in public and ordaining them.

E.g.:

Bishop approaches random guy on the subway.
Bishop: “Good morning I ordain you a Bishop…blah blah blah”
Random Guy: “Hey, get your hands off me! Police!”
Bishop reaches for another man…
etc.

What would be the practical effect of having lots of illicit but Valid Priests or Bishops running around parishes and dioceses?

E.g.:

“Father Murphy, as part of your transfer to the Diocese of New York, there’s something I have to tell you about St. Peter’s downtown.”
“What’s that?”
“Well, we had a little incident a few years ago with the former Bishop. Half the men sitting in the pews are actually fully Valid but illicit Bishops of the Catholic Church, and that fact has gotten into the heads of some of them.”

That would be difficult, due to the restrictions in canon law, CIC:

Can. 1024 Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.
Can. 1025 §1 In order lawfully to confer the orders of priesthood or diaconate, it must have been established, in accordance with the proofs laid down by law, that in the judgement of the proper Bishop or competent major Superior, the candidate possesses the requisite qualities, that he is free of any irregularity or impediment, and that he has fulfilled the requirements set out in can. 1033 - 1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in can. 1050 must be to hand, and the investigation mentioned in can. 1051 must have been carried out.
§2 It is further required that, in the judgement of the same lawful Superior, the candidate is considered beneficial to the ministry of the Church.
§3 A Bishop ordaining his own subject who is destined for the service of another diocese, must be certain that the ordinand will in fact be attached to that other diocese.

Read the rest here 1033 - 1039, 1050-1051:
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3O.HTM

 

[Karenfern]

LeFevre did exactly that and all the men he ordained were denied canonical status. He also ordained a nasty Holocaust denier. Benedict, in an excess of generosity initially readmitted the man but thought better of it and revoked his status.

 

[Reepicheep]

LeFevre did exactly that and all the men he ordained were denied canonical status. He also ordained a nasty Holocaust denier. Benedict, in an excess of generosity initially readmitted the man but thought better of it and revoked his status.

By “the man” do you mean LeFevre or the Holocaust denier?

 

[mdgspencer]

When Eastern European countries were run by Communist regimes, bishops ordained men who had not gone to the siminary, men the Vatican did not know at the time. Organized preparation of men for the priesthood was impossible in some countries. After these countries were freed from Communism and the Church could operate freely, the Church had to sort out these ordinations. Reports that I read then explained that the Church did accept some of the ordained men as priests. These reports did not say that all of them were accepted, and I don’t know what happened to any of them that were not accepted after what had been done secretly came out.

 

[WAC]

That would be difficult, due to the restrictions in canon law, CIC:

Can. 1024 Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.
Can. 1025 §1 In order lawfully to confer the orders of priesthood or diaconate, it must have been established, in accordance with the proofs laid down by law, that in the judgement of the proper Bishop or competent major Superior, the candidate possesses the requisite qualities, that he is free of any irregularity or impediment, and that he has fulfilled the requirements set out in can. 1033 - 1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in can. 1050 must be to hand, and the investigation mentioned in can. 1051 must have been carried out.
§2 It is further required that, in the judgement of the same lawful Superior, the candidate is considered beneficial to the ministry of the Church.
§3 A Bishop ordaining his own subject who is destined for the service of another diocese, must be certain that the ordinand will in fact be attached to that other diocese.

Read the rest here 1033 - 1039, 1050-1051:
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3O.HTM

It takes three bishops to validly consecrate a man, so that there is no doubt about his consecration.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

LeFevre did exactly that and all the men he ordained were denied canonical status. He also ordained a nasty Holocaust denier. Benedict, in an excess of generosity initially readmitted the man but thought better of it and revoked his status.

His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t some sort of rogue bishop who randomly consecrated vast armies of clergy in opposition to Rome. He elevated four priests to the episcopacy so they could continue his ministry with the SSPX., as his health was failing. While it is schismatic to ordain clergy in opposition to the Holy See, it states in the same canon that if there is a real or perceived crisis in the Church such ordinations are both licit and valid; no excommunication is occurred thus Archbishop Lefebvre could hardly be considered a “rogue bishop”, as either he was right and there is a crisis in the Church (from sex abuse to general lack of faith amongst the laity, there are quite a few problems) or he was inculpably afraid of there being a crisis.

Bishop Williamson was greatly misguided about the history of the Holocaust I grant you, however please don’t simply mark him off simply as “a nasty holocaust denier” despite is faults he is still a greatly orthodox Bishop who works diligently for the Church. Aside from this Benedict wasn’t being extremely generous as much as he was righting past wrongs (which is extremely noble) which the clergy amongst and the laity who attend SSPX chapels have suffered. And Williamson was never excommunicated or defrocked over his statements regarding the holocaust, as it is not a matter of faith and (despite being misguided) is not heretical. So I have no idea what you mean when you say his status was revoked.

 

[Corki]

That would be difficult, due to the restrictions in canon law, CIC:

Can. 1024 Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.
Can. 1025 §1 In order lawfully to confer the orders of priesthood or diaconate, it must have been established, in accordance with the proofs laid down by law, that in the judgement of the proper Bishop or competent major Superior, the candidate possesses the requisite qualities, that he is free of any irregularity or impediment, and that he has fulfilled the requirements set out in can. 1033 - 1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in can. 1050 must be to hand, and the investigation mentioned in can. 1051 must have been carried out.
§2 It is further required that, in the judgement of the same lawful Superior, the candidate is considered beneficial to the ministry of the Church.
§3 A Bishop ordaining his own subject who is destined for the service of another diocese, must be certain that the ordinand will in fact be attached to that other diocese.

Read the rest here 1033 - 1039, 1050-1051:
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3O.HTM

Those are the requirement for licitness not validity.

It takes three bishops to validly consecrate a man, so that there is no doubt about his consecration.

This is not true for the ordination of a priest. Even for the ordination of a Bishop, it is only a tradition, not a requirement for validity.

 

[WAC]

His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t some sort of rogue bishop who randomly consecrated vast armies of clergy in opposition to Rome. He elevated four priests to the episcopacy so they could continue his ministry with the SSPX., as his health was failing. While it is schismatic to ordain clergy in opposition to the Holy See, it states in the same canon that if there is a real or perceived crisis in the Church such ordinations are both licit and valid; no excommunication is occurred thus Archbishop Lefebvre could hardly be considered a “rogue bishop”, as either he was right and there is a crisis in the Church (from sex abuse to general lack of faith amongst the laity, there are quite a few problems) or he was inculpably afraid of there being a crisis.

Bishop Williamson was greatly misguided about the history of the Holocaust I grant you, however please don’t simply mark him off simply as “a nasty holocaust denier” despite is faults he is still a greatly orthodox Bishop who works diligently for the Church. Aside from this Benedict wasn’t being extremely generous as much as he was righting past wrongs (which is extremely noble) which the clergy amongst and the laity who attend SSPX chapels have suffered. And Williamson was never excommunicated or defrocked over his statements regarding the holocaust, as it is not a matter of faith and (despite being misguided) is not heretical. So I have no idea what you mean when you say his status was revoked.

1. That is not true. Archbishop Lefbebvre automatically incurred excommunication from disobeying the papacy. He was warned by John Paul II. At that time, the crisis was not as visible and so you come to a false conclusion. The Archbishop is in fact schismatic and is fully culpable for his actions.

 

[Hokomai]

Bishop Williamson was greatly misguided about the history of the Holocaust I grant you, however please don’t simply mark him off simply as “a nasty holocaust denier” despite is faults he is still a greatly orthodox Bishop who works diligently for the Church. Aside from this Benedict wasn’t being extremely generous as much as he was righting past wrongs (which is extremely noble) which the clergy amongst and the laity who attend SSPX chapels have suffered. And Williamson was never excommunicated or defrocked over his statements regarding the holocaust, as it is not a matter of faith and (despite being misguided) is not heretical. So I have no idea what you mean when you say his status was revoked.

Why say ‘misguided’? Why not just say ‘wrong’? Or ‘willfully wrong’, holding an absurd position based on internet chatter from nutters in the face of massive scholarship. The same could be said about his ‘misguided’ views on 9/11. I agree he is not ‘simply’ a nasty holocaust denier. No one is ‘simply’ any one thing. But he is, among other things, a nasty holocaust denier.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

1. That is not true. Archbishop Lefbebvre automatically incurred excommunication from disobeying the papacy. He was warned by John Paul II. At that time, **the crisis was not as visible **and so you come to a false conclusion. The Archbishop is in fact schismatic and is fully culpable for his actions.

The crisis was not “as visible?” So do you or do you not agree that there was a crisis in the Church at the time? Even if it wasn’t as noticeable to the average laymen as it is currently, that doesn’t mean that there was/is no crisis.

 

[WAC]

Those are the requirement for licitness not validity.

This is not true for the ordination of a priest. Even for the ordination of a Bishop, it is only a tradition, not a requirement for validity.

I never said that for the ordination of a priest. It makes sure that there are no concerns for the validity in case two of the bishops were invalidly ordained.

 

[WAC]

The crisis was not “as visible?” So do you or do you not agree that there was a crisis in the Church at the time? Even if it wasn’t as noticeable to the average laymen as it is currently, that doesn’t mean that there was/is no crisis.

I cannot claim that I have knowledge to say whether there was a crisis occurring. However, I can say that the actions were occurring. Moreover, this situation was not near to the crisis concerning the Eastern Church. That rift was caused by irrational decisions, which occurred because the papal legate threw a bull of excommunication on the altar in the Hagia Sophia- acting without the authority of the Pope. It also was due to political reasons. That was indeed a visible crisis.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I cannot claim that I have knowledge to say whether there was a crisis occurring. However, I can say that the actions were occurring. Moreover, this situation was not near to the crisis concerning the Eastern Church. That rift was caused by irrational decisions, which occurred because the papal legate threw a bull of excommunication on the altar in the Hagia Sophia- acting without the authority of the Pope. It also was due to political reasons. That was indeed a visible crisis.

But surely if the actions (of abuse and heresy) causing the crisis were occurring, the crisis itself had already begun and Archbishop Lefebvre had noticed which way the proverbial wind was blowing. Regardless of which crisis (the Great Schism or current state of the Roman Church) you see as greater, that does not change the fact that both are crisis. And I dear say that the Church is in a bit of a visible crisis at the moment, with new stories of abuse becoming commonplace, and the emptying of the parishes and what not!

 

[WAC]

But surely if the actions (of abuse and heresy) causing the crisis were occurring, the crisis itself had already begun and Archbishop Lefebvre had noticed which way the proverbial wind was blowing. Regardless of which crisis (the Great Schism or current state of the Roman Church) you see as greater, that does not change the fact that both are crisis. And I dear say that the Church is in a bit of a visible crisis at the moment, with new stories of abuse becoming commonplace, and the emptying of the parishes and what not!

There is a big difference between half of the Church and a renegade bishop. Your right, the sexual abuse scandal was a crisis, and it was proportionately taken out of context. The Archbishop directly defied the papacy and incurred automatic excommunication. What Archbishop Lefebvre was doing was against the Successor of Peter, head of the twelve apostles. The bishops are the successors of the apostles and are therefore subject to the Pope.