Fr Zuhlsdorf, Michael Davies, and doubtful sacraments
'Father Z', aka Fr John Zuhlsdorf, responded to our article on whether the new rites of holy orders are valid. Here's our reply.
'Father Z', aka Fr John Zuhlsdorf, responded to our article on whether the new rites of holy orders are valid. Here's our reply.
Introduction
Are the new rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration valid? Are men whose orders depend on them really priests and bishops, and certainly so?
A few months ago, Fr John Zuhlsdorf published some remarks in response to an article we published about the validity of the new rites of priestly ordination (NRPO) and episcopal consecration (NREC), which were promulgated by Paul VI in 1968.
Fr Zuhlsdorf’s comments are wide-ranging. He covers the following points:
Understanding why many Catholics question the validity of the post-Vatican II rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration
Michael Davies’ book The Order of Melchisedech
The importance of rites being explicit in their purpose and effect
Anecdotes from his seminary experience
Christ’s promise to preserve his Church and the validity of the sacraments.
Over the years, Fr Zuhlsdorf has done much to spread awareness of the traditional Roman liturgy, the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo rites, and various points relating to the traditional Catholic religion. Much of his work has been of personal benefit, for which I thank him.
Fr Zuhlsdorf’s response also refers to Michael Davies work The Order of Melchisedech. Many years ago, I found Fr Zuhlsdorf’s explanation of this issue, also based on his interpretation of Davies’ book, very helpful.
Since then, I have come to see the matter differently, and much of this article deals with the work in question. I am glad for this opportunity to critique Davies’ arguments on this matter.
Finally, Fr Zuhlsdorf’s comments on our publication were respectful and engaged meaningfully with the ideas raised. As a gesture of reciprocity, we offer here a closer look at his analysis.
CONTENTS:
PART I: OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
Arguments around the issue of sacramental validity
Epistemic deadlock with only one way out
What is ‘the safer course’ here?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
John Paul II’s changes
PART II: SIGNIFICATIO EX ADJUNCTIS
Indeterminate forms
Are the traditional forms determinate or indeterminate?
The theory of significatio ex adjunctis
Begging the question that the NRPO is valid
Fr Zuhlsdorf implicitly refutes Davies’ and Clark’s argument on the wider context
Prevalence of such horror stories—what does the Conciliar/Synodal Church believe?
PART III: SHORT-CIRCUITING ARGUMENTS WITH THE CONCILIAR/SYNODAL CHURCH
Continuity of the hierarchy and indefectibility
The alleged authority of the self-labelled ‘Conciliar/Synodal Church’
Michael Davies and Fr William Jenkins
What can and can’t the pope do?
Infallibility of universal disciplinary laws—Davies’ walking back on his critiques
CONCLUSION
If you like the sound of this, hit subscribe now so you don’t miss similar stuff in the future. And if you’re really feeling generous, take out a monthly/annual subscription!
Part I: Overview of the problem
Fr Zuhlsdorf begins his piece:
At a substack called WM Review, there is a provocative piece about whether or not, because of the change to the rites of ordination after the Council, we will have validly consecrated bishops in the future.
This question comes up once in a while because it is an important issue and there were significant changes to the rites of ordination of priests and of bishops under Paul VI.
The article in question was written by the late Abbé Henri Mouraux, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s friend and collaborator.
However, let’s be clear. The arguments raised about the NRPO and the NREC are not about any old changes to the rite in the abstract. The problems lie in the particular changes made to these rites—or rather, the replacement of the old rites with these particular new ones.
This article was part of a larger project, studying the validity of the post-conciliar sacramental rites, and defending the following thesis:
To preserve sacramental integrity, safeguard the common good, and secure peace of conscience for all, the only possible course is a systematic programme of (at least) conditional ordination/consecration of clerics whose orders depend on the validity of the Novus Ordo rites.
You can see more on this larger project here:
Arguments around the issue of sacramental validity
In the specific article, Mouraux was arguing that the changes introduced were very similar to those inflicted by the Church of England (in the Anglican Ordinal), rendering the validity of the NRPO doubtful or invalid for reasons similar or identical to those in Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae.
Mouraux argued further that, if the NRPO was invalid, then men ordained with it could not be validly consecrated to the episcopate either, because per saltum consecrations (episcopal consecration conferred on one who is not a priest) are of doubtful validity.1
Such doubts about whether a man is indeed validly ordained or consecrated result in an insufficient basis for administering or receiving the sacraments, as we shall discuss shortly.
We had been publishing translations of Abbé Mouraux’s articles for their historic value, rather than a direct endorsement of their arguments, or the certainty of their conclusions. Whatever one may think of his arguments, they demonstrate the range of views which have existed in and around the Society of St Pius X in days of yore.
Those interested in Mouraux’s arguments should consult his articles. Personally, I favour a parallel line of argument based on the infallibility of the Church, which we will discuss later in this piece. In a very brief form, this argument proceeds as follows:
First rungs of the argument
The Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws, which include her liturgical rites. This means that rites which come from the Church cannot be harmful, dangerous, or out of conformity with the Catholic faith; she is unable to sanction or guarantee such rites. This inability is an indefectible property of the Church.
But the Novus Ordo liturgical rites are indeed harmful, dangerous and out of conformity with the Catholic faith.
Therefore, the Novus Ordo liturgical rites do not come from the Church, and have not been sanctioned or guaranteed by her—despite any appearances to the contrary.
Notes on the first premise: This is a standard thesis of traditional theology, and taught by the magisterium.
Notes on the second premise: This represents the standard critique of traditionalists since Vatican II.
Notes on the conclusion: If we were dealing with a merely human institution, we could say that such a turn of events simply represents a defection. But we are unable to say that about the Church; hence the necessity of the clause “despite any appearances to the contrary.”2
This conclusion has been expressed by a variety of significant traditionalist clergy over the years, by men including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Second rungs of the argument
Only rites which come to us from the Church and have been sanctioned and guaranteed by her enjoy her guarantees of validity.
The Novus Ordo liturgical rites do not come from the Church, and have not been sanctioned or guaranteed by her.
Therefore the Novus Ordo liturgical rites do not enjoy her guarantees of validity.
Notes on the first premise: There is no theological principle which allows us to say that the Church’s liturgical rites are infallibly valid but not infallibly safe and Catholic.
Notes on the second premise: This was established in the previous rungs of the argument.
Notes on the conclusion: This pertains primarily to those sacramental rites which suffered changes in their essentials (matter and form)—namely, the Eucharist, confirmation, holy orders and extreme unction.
“Not enjoying guarantees of validity” necessarily means that the rites are subject to prima facie doubt.
Epistemic deadlock with only one way out
Can such doubt be dispelled by private studies and comparisons with the traditional rites? Can it legitimately be dismissed from the minds of Catholics by a command from a traditionalist order of priests?
Without the judgment of the Church, studies into the problem may well arrive at nothing more than probable opinions of validity, which will only be as probable as the arguments on which they are based. It is hard to see how clergy or faithful could be obliged (or even permitted) to act on the merely probable opinion of validity, even if it seems very probable (or even certain) to private individuals.
The argument is presented in greater detail in the following pieces:
If this argument, or those mounted by Mouraux or anyone else, are even only probable, then the orders conferred using these rites cannot be more than probably valid.
But probably valid orders are also, by definition, doubtfully valid.
There is only one way out of this situation. When it comes to conferring or receiving the sacraments, Catholics are forbidden to act on merely probable opinions about validity whilst leaving aside the safer course.
What is ‘the safer course’ here?
The idea that we are obliged to take “the safer course” is called tutiorism. Its general application in moral reasoning was condemned by the Holy Office in 1690,3 but it is a standard principle of moral theology—established by the Holy Office in 1679—that we are obliged to take the safer course when it comes to the validity of the sacraments.4
In the practical order, “the safer course” is treating doubtful sacraments as invalid—even if we can acknowledge that they might well be valid in fact. This may be surprising to some, but this is how the theologians understand the matter, as discussed elsewhere. This is because treating doubtful or only probably valid sacraments as if they were valid would be to expose a sacrament to the danger of invalid administration or reception, which is impermissible.
As such, administering or receiving the sacraments in a manner which is doubtfully or only probably valid is to act in a doubtful conscience, which is impermissible. One would be freely choosing a course of action which entails either receiving a sacrament or merely simulating one—the latter of which is a sacrilege. While someone might prefer or hope to be receiving a true sacrament under such circumstances, this course of action entails a practical indifference to whether we posit an act of virtue or of sacrilege.
In our context, this means that it is morally impossible (at least outside of danger of death) for Catholics to approach clerics whose orders depend on the new rites, for those sacraments which must be administered by a priest or a bishop for validity.
(For the sake of clarity, this is not the case with baptism or marriage, which do not require a minister in holy orders for validity.)
A second consequence of this is contained in our thesis statement: that the only moral, prudent, just and charitable course is the systematic conditional ordination of clerics whose orders depend on the the validity of the Novus Ordo rites. This is discussed further elsewhere:
So much for the arguments about the topic, and how a situation of doubt should be resolved.
Let’s continue with Fr Zuhlsdorf’s article.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
Against the sorts of conclusions just discussed, Fr Zuhlsdorf refers to the Michael Davies’ work The Order of Melchisedech.
This book was a devastating and relentless critique of the NRPO—albeit one which, against all odds and the author’s own stated instincts, assumed the validity of the rite. Fr Zuhlsdorf writes:
HOWEVER… in view of the ordination of priests the late great Michael Davies wrote a book called Order of Melchisedech: A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood. Davies tackles the changes to the rites after the Council, pointing out the problems. However, he argues that the rites DO ordain validly despite the changes.
Fr Zuhlsdorf then proceeds to explain the importance of the maxim “lex orandi, lex credendi”:
Rites should make explicit exactly what they are supposed to do. For example, the post-Conciliar Book of Blessings has “blessings” that don’t explicitly bless things with a constitutive blessing (as opposed to an invocative blessing). The forward to the Book of Blessings states that it is trying to eliminate the distinction. Change the rite, you just might change the effect. And WE ARE OUR RITES. How we pray impacts what we believe and, hence, how we live, and vice versa in a complete intertwined loop of influence.
Fr Zuhlsdorf concludes from this “intertwined loop of influence” between rites and faith:
The rites of ordination were significantly changed after Vatican II, so it is entirely normal that one might wonder about them.
This is a gracious comment on Fr Zuhlsdorf’s part, especially as we are discussing the very rite with which he was ordained; we are, therefore, indirectly discussing the validity of his own holy orders. Few men can be as even-handed or detached as Fr Zuhlsdorf is being here, and this is worthy of our respect.
John Paul II’s changes
Fr Zuhlsdorf states that even John Paul II’s Vatican recognised the problems with the new rite of priestly ordination:
The changes to the ordination for priests were concerning enough that John Paul II in 1990 put things back into the rite that Paul VI took out.
Let’s see what Davies said about John Paul II’s changes. He argues that John Paul II’s changes were insufficient to resolve the problems of the NRPO:
The first point that must be made is that [even after these changes] the “native character and spirit” of the 1968 rite remain, and that the 1989 rite is manifestly inferior to the traditional rite as a liturgical expression of Catholic teaching on the priesthood, even if somewhat less inferior than that of 1968.
Anglicans would be unlikely to modify to any great extent the enthusiastic welcome with which they greeted the 1968 Ordinal because it was “an ‘ecumenical’ ordinal in the best sense, in that it avoids much questionable terminology and is clearly expressive of the theological aggiornamento of Vatican II” (see page 92).
By questionable terminology Anglicans mean, of course, prayers in the traditional rite which make explicit the fact that a priest is ordained primarily to offer sacrifice.5
Davies also states that the preface of the rite, which constitutes the form of the sacrament, is itself indeterminate.
Part II: Indeterminate forms
What this means is that the words used in the form are tolerant of both (a) a Catholic signification, and (b) a signification which rejects essential, primary effects of the sacrament of holy orders.
In his 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII wrote:
All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify.6
Pope Leo XIII says almost exactly the same words (omitted below) and then states that this signification must be found in the matter and the form of the sacrament, but chiefly in the form:
Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”.
And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the “matter” of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confirmation.7
In his Apostolic Constitution, Pius XII states that “the effects which must be produced and hence also signified” are “power and grace,” and that this is “found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it.”8
He settled a longstanding debate on the matter in three ways.
First, by saying that for the future, the laying on of hands is to be the matter of ordination to the diaconate, priesthood and episcopate.
Second, by specifying what all valid forms for holy orders must necessarily signify to be valid:
Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects—namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit—and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.
In other words, a valid form must express:
The power of order
The grace of the Holy Ghost
… in a way which is:
Accepted by the Church in that sense.
Third, by specifying the particular prayers in the rites which constitute the respective forms.
Let's consider the second way Pius XII settled the debate.
Are the traditional forms determinate or indeterminate?
It is well-established that the power of order may be expressed in a sacramental form either by reference to the specific order in question, or to its “grace and power.”9 It is also well-established that, while the words “bishop” and “priest” are capable of fulfilling this requirement in a Catholic rite, these words would not be capable of doing so in a context in which the words mean something different and opposed to their true meaning.10
Basing himself on the teaching of Apostolicae Curae, Davies makes this point by noting that the traditional “indeterminate” form “was given an unambiguously Catholic connotation by other prayers and ceremonies in the traditional rite.”11 While this form stated “that the ordinands are to be raised to the priesthood,” what was meant by the priesthood was determined by the rite as a whole, which “contained numerous prayers which gave explicit sacerdotal signification to the indeterminate Prex.”12
But, Davies noted the same point as Mouraux and several other critics of the NRPO:
[E]very one of these prayers was removed during the composition of the 1968 rite.
This meant that although the 1968 Ordinal still retained the Prex from the traditional rite virtually unchanged, the Prex no longer received a sacrificial connotation from the actual rite in which it was situated.13
Indeed, the central point of Davies’ book is that the sacrificial connotation was stripped away and obscured in the new sacramental rites, as well as the Novus Ordo Missae. As Davies wrote:
[E]very prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant Reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.
At this point some of the prayers introduced into the new Ordinal will be examined to assess the extent to which they make explicit the doctrine of the prayers which have been abolished. It must be remembered that this doctrine, as was made clear earlier, is not simply the doctrine of Trent but the doctrine of Vatican II.14
However, Davies does not think that this means that all is lost.
The theory of significatio ex adjunctis
He cites Dr Francis Clark’s opinion, that the sacrificial signification of the NRPO’s form was still sufficiently determined by the wider setting, “from a determinatio ex adiunctis external to the rite itself.”15
To what are the words “determinatio ex adiunctis” referring?
Clark explains elsewhere that the principal “adjuncts” are normally “the prayers associated with [the form], or even by the more general setting and purport of the whole rite.”16 He explains further elsewhere:
There is much to be said for the theory of determination ex adjunctis in the case of those sacraments in which the wording of the form is not fixed exactly by divine institution. What is required of a sacramental form is that it should signify. Now many important decisions in both the spiritual and temporal spheres are signified by language or signs indefinite in themselves, but completely definite by convention or context.17
John Daly gives a further explanation:
These adjuncts are all those factors and circumstances which are associated with a sacramental form and can therefore give extrinsic determination to such parts of the form as are intrinsically indeterminate.
The primary adjuncts are other prayers and actions contained in the sacramental ceremony, while secondary adjuncts can include the known beliefs of the minister or of the authors of the rite and conceivably the contemporary historical situation.18
Although Davies accepted Clark’s argument (and thus the validity of the new rite of ordination), he noted that such an argument meant that Clark was conceding that the due meaning “is no longer explicit in the ritual forms.”19
Begging the question that the NRPO is valid
In any case, John Paul II’s “improvements” are only relevant to those who presume that the NRPO was valid all along, and see John Paul II’s changes as one of justice, or of didactic importance.
This is simply a case of begging the question—both that the 1968 was valid, and also that the changes render it even more certainly valid.
But even if we conceded this, it would not resolve the arguments about the validity of the initial rites as they stood from 1968-1989. After all, it is not as if John Paul II required all men ordained and consecrated in the 1968 versions to be re-ordained and re-consecrated with his new versions.
In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII expresses the same point about the futile attempts of the Anglicans to “fix” their rites in a similar way:
This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words ‘for the office and work of a priest,’ etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.20
In other words: such “improvements” are shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
Fr Zuhlsdorf implicitly refutes Davies’ and Clark’s argument on the wider context
Davies ingeniously find limited pieces of evidence internal to the rite, which could be construed (or contrived) as implying orthodox Catholic doctrine, here and there within the rite—namely, in various propers used on different feast days.
However, a major line of argument which he adopts, following that of Dr Francis Clark, is that the “religious context of the age” is crucial in determining the NRPO’s validity.
Fr Zuhlsdorf indirectly refutes this idea in the article we are examining, in the truly horrific stories he shares about his time in seminary.
But before considering those anecdotes, we should also note that Davies seems to think, most implausibly, that the presence of some texts which affirm (or equivocally imply) Catholic doctrine can be sufficient to determine an indeterminate form in a Catholic sense—and thus counteract the tidal wave of parallel statements and actions which run contrary to Catholic doctrine. Against this, the popes have warned us at length about the modernist tendency to affirm and deny at different times.
Notwithstanding occasional texts, acts and events to the contrary, it is difficult to take seriously the idea that Vatican II, Paul VI and the “religious context of the age” can sufficiently specify the Catholic doctrine of the Mass and the priesthood, such that an indeterminate sacramental form could be determined in an orthodox and therefore valid sense.
Although Fr Zuhlsdorf raises his seminary anecdotes in the context of defective sacramental intention, they have direct relevance to sacramental form, in that they undermine the idea that the wider “religious context of the age” is sufficient to render the NRPO valid. These seminary anecdotes include being…
Forbidden to use the word “priest” and being obliged to use “ministers” instead.
Told by one particular priest professor that “when the ordained minister says the words of institution [not consecration] over bread and wine no real change takes place – they become a symbol of the unity of the community gathered there in that moment.”
Told “that the Church no longer teaches transubstantiation,” with “Vatican II” being the answer to the question as to when this change occurred.
Told that he was “locked up in irrelevant Aristotelean categories”
Thrown out of seminary by this priest professor the day after his promotion to the position of rector.
Fr Zuhlsdorf sums up the doctrine he received in the 1980s at seminary:
[T]here are no priests in the sense of sacramentally ordained. The community calls forth presiders for their “eucharist” (see above for what he believed about eucharist!) who embody who the community is. As the community changes, or the one called forth changes, that person returns to the assembly and another is called forth to preside.
Prevalence of such horror stories—what does the Conciliar/Synodal Church believe?
Although there are exceptions, many others could give similar accounts of the “intellectual” environment of their seminaries. And yet Fr Zuhlsdorf opines that these are ideas are so extreme “that very few men indeed would buy them and remain a priest for any length of time after ordination”—and that it is unlikely that such men would be made bishops.
On the contrary, such ideas are more or less common throughout the Novus Ordo milieu; and where they are less extreme or less common, they are replaced with more subdued denials of traditional doctrine. It is now rare to hear the Mass referred to as a sacrifice; when it is, it is as a sacrifice of praise or of ourselves, rather than a propitiatory sacrifice representing that of Christ on the Cross. The Mass is commonly treated as an exchange of gifts, whereby we give God ourselves and he gives us himself.
Although there are occasional affirmations of points of orthodoxy from official channels, the toleration of all this error, and the promotion of those who spread it, means that such occasional affirmations of orthodoxy cannot be treated as the hermeneutical key for the rest.
The reality is that the self-titled “Conciliar/Synodal Church” does not really seem to believe any one thing about the Mass and the priesthood: rather, as with the Anglicans, it is a “broad church,” tolerant of a variety of opposing views. For these reasons, it seems incredible for Davies (or anyone else) to appeal to the wider “religious context of the age” as determinative of the NRPO in an orthodox sense.
Leaving aside the risibility of such an appeal in the post-conciliar period, we should also note the status of the entire theory itself. John Daly writes the following:
It should be noted, however, that the entire theory of “significatio (or ‘determinatio’) ex adjunctis” is no more than theologically probable […], and that the inclusion among the sacramental adjuncts of circumstances as remote from the actual ceremonies as contemporary beliefs of persons other than the minister of the ritual has such scant theological support that it is doubtful whether it is even probable.21
As such, Davies’ and Clark’s arguments are radically insufficient to establish moral certainty of the NRPO’s validity. We have already seen how we are to treat doubtful or merely probably valid sacraments.
But this appeal to the alleged authority of the Conciliar Church—which has since come to label itself the Conciliar/Synodal Church—brings us to the next and final part.
Part III: Short-circuiting arguments with the Conciliar/Synodal Church
Continuity of the hierarchy and indefectibility
Towards the end of his piece, Fr Zuhlsdorf proposes another reason, also expressed by Michael Davies, as evidence of the alleged validity of the new sacramental rites:
Jesus founded our Church. Jesus will take care of our Church. That doesn’t mean that the Church will survive “woke” in the USA or in the Amazon or in Rome! It means that Jesus will maintain the Church in some form with valid sacraments – valid Holy Orders – no matter what is inflicted on her from without or from within. Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
One must always be clear as to what one’s opponents are arguing, and recognise what are and are not the logical implications of their arguments.
In our case, the defenders of the NRPO and NREC are not often aware that our arguments do not point towards the disappearance of the hierarchy. Similarly, the truth that Christ will maintain valid sacraments for the Church by no means necessitates the validity of these problematic new rites.
In his classic study defending the validity of the NREC, Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay OP himself explicitly concedes this point to us:
Undoubtedly, if the new rite were systematically invalid, the Catholic Church would be in a piteous state. Nevertheless, it still would not be without a hierarchy.
Indeed, the bishops of the Eastern Rites would still remain, as they would continue to benefit from a valid ordination.
And in the Roman Church, the bishops of Tradition would remain as well as—though for how long?—a few aged bishops ordained according to the former rite, all of them non-resident bishops.
If the new rite were invalid, the Church would not be utterly without hierarchy: still, there would be an almost total disappearance of the Roman Church’s hierarchy, which seems hardly compatible with the special assistance of Providence over this Church, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches.22
I have also addressed the final point made by Fr Pierre-Marie elsewhere.
The alleged authority of the self-labelled ‘Conciliar/Synodal Church’
Fr Zuhlsdorf’s comments above may also allude to Davies’ interpretation of the Church’s indefectibility, and his argument that “the authority of the Church” and of the Roman Pontiff are “decisive in affirming the validity of a sacramental rite.”23
We have already seen that Davies’ book was a devastating critique of aspect after aspect of the NRPO. By way of conclusions, he referred to Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, and challenged readers to deny that they were fittingly applied to the NRPO:
As a final comment on the new Catholic Ordinal, I would like to quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned. Pope Leo wrote of the authors of the Ordinal and
“… the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognisant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers.
“For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium, and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
“In this way, the native character—or spirit, as it is called—of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.”24
Incidentally, Davies omits the important passage with follows immediately, and is stated by way of consequence of what came before:
Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place.25
However, in spite of this devastating and unanswerable challenge, which he simply leaves hanging in the air, Davies proceeded to “short-circuit” the argument by appeal to the alleged authority of Paul VI:
The decisive factor where the validity of any sacramental rite is concerned is the approval given to it by the Pope. As Appendix XI makes clear, no Pope could impose or authorize for universal use any sacramental rite that was either invalid or intrinsically harmful to the faith. […]
The papal approbation given to the Latin Typical Editions of all the post-conciliar sacramental rites places their validity beyond dispute.26
The importance of this line of argument becomes clear when we realise that this argument, apparently more than any relating to the adjuncts, determined Davies’ conclusion of validity.
Davies and Fr Jenkins
Davies admitted that, were it not for this apparent papal approbation, he would have considered that the new rite of priestly ordination was invalid. He stated this clearly in The Roman Catholic, in response to Fr William Jenkins’ engagement with his book:
I must begin by congratulating Fr. Jenkins on his perceptive reading of my book. He remarked correctly that within its text I appear to entertain doubts as to the validity of the new rite of Ordination, in contrast with the position I have taken in subsequent articles, and the opinion of Professor van der Ploeg, stated in his Foreword, that there could be no doubt about the validity of the new rite.
As a result of the research involved in writing The Order of Melchisedech I had come to the same conclusion that Fr. Jenkins reached in his February article, i.e. that a positive doubt existed as to the validity of the new rite. Fr. Jenkins remarked, giving his judgement of the position I had taken in my book: ‘He appears to conclude that if Apostolicæ Curæ is correct, then the new rite of Ordination must be invalid; and if the new right of Ordination is valid, then Apostolicæ Curæ—a professedly definitive papal decision—is wrong.’
This was precisely the conclusion I had reached after completing the research for the book.27
However, on the basis that he was subsequently advised that the pope could not promulgate an invalid sacramental rite, he adds:
I had thus come to the conclusion that there could be a doubt concerning the new Ordination rite because I had considered that rite in itself, in isolation from the doctrine of the Church.
Seen within the context of the Church’s indefectibility, as a rite of the Catholic Church promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, it could not be otherwise than valid.
Thus, given that Pope Paul VI was indeed the validly elected pontiff who had not lost his office through public heresy, I now consider that Catholics have an obligation to accept at least the Latin versions of all the new sacramental rites as certainly valid.28
John Daly summarises Davies’ argument:
First, he says in effect, the 1968 rite of Ordination appears to be invalid, but must be deemed valid as having been promulgated by a valid pope.
Then he remembers that the “valid pope” in question also appears to have been a public heretic (“... given that Pope Paul VI... had not lost his office through public heresy....”).
Finally, he administers the “coup de grace”. That is, instead of getting himself bogged down in attempting to show why Paul VI was not a public heretic and why, in consequence, his rites must be accepted as valid notwithstanding the fact that they are quite evidently not so, he ... just ... glides ... on, trying to give the impression that he has answered the objection, but in fact leaving it entire.29
What can and can’t the pope do?
While Davies is correct in saying that the Church cannot promulgate an invalid sacramental rite, it is also true that sacramental rites must signify the grace which they effect. Fr Zuhlsdorf makes this point clear in his own piece and even links this question to questions about validity, writing:
Rites should make explicit exactly what they are supposed to do. […] Change the rite, you just might change the effect.
In Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII emphasised that this applies especially to the words which constitute the form:
All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”.30
This was reaffirmed Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis in almost identical words, as we have already seen.31
It is well known that if the form suffers a substantial change, such that it no longer signifies that which it is supposed to signify, it is rendered invalid (or doubtful, depending on the clarity of the issue).
The Roman Pontiff is indeed unable to promulgate an invalid form; but this does not simply mean that “any rite the Roman Pontiff promulgates will include a valid form”; it also means that it will include a form which adequately determines the matter so as to signify the grace which the sacrament effects.
As an amusing counter example, Daly points out that the Church cannot designate the phrase “May I have two eggs for breakfast?” as a sacramental form for any of the sacraments.32
The NRPO’s situation is not as extreme as this, but the point remains. It will not do for Davies to provide such a critique and then wave it away by reference to the alleged authority of Paul VI.
We have also already seen at the beginning that the nature of the Novus Ordo rites excludes the possibility of saying that these rites come from the Church. Without regard for the legitimacy of Paul VI's claim, this escape route is decisively closed off to us.
But let’s see more about why a Roman Pontiff cannot promulgate an invalid sacramental form.
Infallibility of universal disciplinary laws—Davies’ walking back on his critiques
Davies’ explanation reveals a further flaw in his argumentation, and takes us back to the theological argument for doubting the validity of these sacraments, which we discussed at the beginning.
The Church could not be considered a perfect, visible, supernatural society (and it is of divine faith that the Church possesses these characteristics) if the possibility existed of it offering its members invalid sacraments.
If ever a pope approved an invalid sacramental rite the faithful would be deprived of a means of holiness necessary for their salvation, and hence the Church would have failed and the gates of Hell would have triumphed.33
While Davies is correct that the Church cannot offer invalid sacramental rites, it is also true that the Church is unable to authorise universal disciplines which are dangerous to faith or morals. On the contrary: then too, just as if she offered us invalid sacraments, the gates of Hell would have triumphed.
Davies himself notes this in the same place, and—incredibly, after his scathing critiques of the liturgical reform as a whole—he concludes that the new rites “contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith”:
The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief.
In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself.
Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith.34
It is incredible, and quite sad, to read such words from Michael Davies himself, the arch-critic of the liturgical reform, who has influenced so many on the matter of the new rites. They significantly undermine the prior criticisms and work for which he is so known and loved.
However, such a walking-back is grasping at straws. Nearly all traditionalists agree that the new rites are indeed harmful, and that they express and inculcate a different religion to that of the Catholic Church. Nearly all traditionalists act on this basis, and will only deny the harmfulness of the new rites when they have recognised that such critiques point inexorably towards either (a) a denial of traditional theology, or (b) the defection of the Church, or—the only acceptable answer—(c) an extended vacancy of the Holy See.
But if these rites are harmful and express a different religion, then traditional doctrine means that we cannot say that they come from the Church, or that they enjoy her approval, sanction or guarantees. There is no theological principle which allows us to say that the Church’s liturgical rites are infallibly valid but not infallibly safe and Catholic.
This is why men such as Archbishop Lefebvre and others within the Society of St Pius X have affirmed explicitly that these new rites were not rites of the Church.
But, as we have seen, rites which are not approved, sanctioned or guaranteed by the Church are not necessarily valid; and that which is not necessarily valid, might be invalid. In other words, that they are subject to prima facie doubt.
Because this, we have no basis for assuming that these rites are valid; and we cannot be required to believe that they are valid on the basis of someone else’s private studies or opinions. It is for the Church alone to settle such a matter.
Some final points on sacramental intention
Fr Zuhlsdorf proceeds to introduce a common argument against his own position, based on possible defective ministerial intention of radically heretical ministers.
However, such arguments are not based on firm grounds. What these heretical ministers believe is not relevant unless such beliefs lead to a positive exclusion of a primary effect of the sacrament in the will. This is discussed by Cardinal Gasparri and the accompanying notes here:
Further, a right intention is presumed in one who uses the Church’s rites in a correct and serious way. Pope Leo XIII wrote:
A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.35
How this should be applied to rites which are not from the Church, but which are believed to be by someone in good faith, is outside the scope of this piece.
But as Fr Zuhlsdorf also dismisses these arguments, there is not much to say, except to note that the reasons he offers for this dismissal do not seem to be sound.
Naturally, this does not exclude the problem of defective administration of the sacraments by such ministers, which is a well-known phenomenon.
Conclusion
There are many issues which it has not been possible to discuss here—for instance, the previously mentioned question of whether the NRPO’s form can be said to be identical to that designated by Pope Pius XII, or whether the subtle changes are sufficient to cause problems—whether in themselves, or in the wider context of the radically deformed rite of Paul VI.
I would like to thank Fr Zuhlsdorf for taking the time to engage with our publication of Abbé Mouraux’s article, for conceding the reasonableness of Catholics wondering about the validity of the new rites and the intentions of those using them, and for providing a shocking demonstration of how far orthodoxy had degraded during his time in seminary.
These are disturbing issues, but they will be less disturbing the more we consider them directly and frankly.
We should also be encouraged by how easy the solution really is, even if apparently unrealistic at present: that all those whose orders depend on the new rites seek conditional ordination/consecration by a bishop of unquestionable validity. This is what is required by Can. 732 §2 (1917).
This is the essence of our thesis statement on the topic at The WM Review:
THESIS: To preserve sacramental integrity, safeguard the common good, and secure peace of conscience for all, the only possible course is a systematic programme of (at least) conditional ordination/consecration of clerics whose orders depend on the validity of the Novus Ordo rites.
The necessity of repeating these sacraments conditionally does not entail concluding that they were actually invalid. By definition, sacraments which are doubtfully valid are also possibly valid.
However, it does entail recognising an objective state of doubt, and the necessity of adopting the safer path when it comes to the validity of the sacraments.
Finally, for some time, we have been offering clergy and seminarians free member subscriptions to The WM Review—although we are extremely humbled by those clergy and seminarians who have chosen to support us with paid subscriptions, and grateful to them.
I have taken the opportunity of this piece to upgrade Fr Zuhlsdorf to a full member subscription, and I would like to remind any clergy or seminarians that we will do the same for them upon request.
Our work in general, and these free subscriptions, are only possible because of the support of our annual and monthly subscribers—so thank you to all of those who are subscribed.
See the full index on this matter here:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
John Daly provides the following translation from the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique:
It must be recognized that the almost unanimous response of modern theologians is affirmative: ‘All authors consider the Consecration of a bishop to be invalid unless it is preceded by the priesthood.’ [Emphases added, and the article goes on to quote various authorities for this assertion, including St. Alphonsus Liguori, Book 6, n. 793 of his Theologia Moralis].
John Daly, Michael Davies—An Evaluation, p 239. Second edition, Tradibooks, Rouchas Sud, 2015.
Given that Paul VI appeared to have promulgated these rites, and that their goodness has been confirmed by each of his successors, it could appear that the conclusion that these rites have not been sanctioned by the Church points towards the further conclusion of a vacant see. However, we are not addressing this further conclusion at present, which stands on its own arguments.
We should note that many have adopted this conclusion without also adopting the further conclusion of a vacant see, and have offered explanations (more or less unconvincing) as to how this “non-sanctioning” could have happened. For example, some have posited problems with Paul VI’s promulgation; others have been content with the thoroughly legitimate practical position of adopting the conclusion, whilst asserting their inability to explain the situation.
For an overview of traditionalists who have affirmed the conclusion, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fr Álvaro Calderón, Fr François Laisney, and the FSSPX study into the new liturgy, see here:
Condemned Error: 3.
“It is not licit to follow a [probable] opinion, even the most probable among the probable ones.”
DH n. 2303, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7 1690.
Condemned Error:
In conferring the sacraments, it is not illicit to follow the probable opinion with respect to the validity of the sacrament, disregarding what is more certain, unless it is forbidden by law, convention, or the danger of incurring grave harm. For this reason, it is only in the conferral of baptism (and) priestly or episcopal ordination that the probable opinion is not to be held.
DH 2100, Sixty-Five Propositions Condemned in the Decree of the Holy Office, March 2, 1679.
Davies 206
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, n. 3
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, n. 24
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, n. 3
Pope Leo XIII criticised the Anglican rite on the basis that it did not “definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power,” and the English bishops emphasised the disjunctive nature of this “or”:
You have failed to observe the word ‘or’ in the proposition in which the Bull states what the requirements are. The proposition is disjunctive. The rite for the priesthood, the Pope says, ‘must definitely express the sacred Order of the priesthood or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.’ You do not seem to have perceived the importance of this little word ‘or,’ and have taken it to be the equivalent of ‘and.’
What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which the candidate is being promoted must be distinctly indicated either by its accepted name or by an explicit reference to the grace and power which belongs to it. And, of course, he means us to understand that the same alternative requirements hold with regard to the form for the episcopate. The form must either designate the Order by its accepted name of ‘bishop’ or ‘high priest,’ or it must indicate that the high priesthood is the grace and power imparted. Nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable, for in the Catholic Church the alternative phrases are perfectly equivalent. The Catholic Church has always meant by the term ‘priest’ (sacerdos) a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice, and again by the terms ‘priest’ (presbyter) and ‘bishop’ (episcopus) or ‘high priest’ (summus sacerdos), the possessors of this power in its substance and in its plenitude respectively. (Chapter 26)
Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster, A Vindication of the Bull “Apostolicæ Curæ”, Longmans Geen, and Co, London, 1898. http://www.a-c-r-f.com/documents/ENGLISH_BISHOPS-Vindication_Apostolicae_curae.pdf
Following the quote above, the bishops proceed to note that while the words “bishop” and “priest” are capable of fulfilling this requirement in a Catholic rite, they would not be capable of doing so in a context in which the words mean something different and opposed to their true meaning:
Before we leave this branch of the subject, one word may be useful to meet an objection which perhaps occurs to you. The terms ‘priest,’ ‘bishop,’ it may be said, are now declared to be the accepted terms to denote those who have received in substance or in plenitude the sacrificial power. Why, then, have they been rejected in an earlier part of this Letter as not bearing that meaning when they occur in your prayer, Almighty God, Giver of all good things?
The objection is specious, but it forgets that words take their meanings from the communities in which they are used. Now in the Catholic Church the terms ‘priest’ and ‘bishop’ have always had a sacrificial meaning ; and hence when used in our ‘essential forms’ they definitely convey the required sacrificial meaning. The same is true of the Oriental Communions which use these various ancient ordination forms—as may be seen, if anyone doubts the fact, by an inspection of their Liturgies for the Mass.
But with your Communion it is different. Your Reformers no doubt retained the terms ‘priest’ and ‘bishop’ as the distinctive names of the two higher degrees of their clergy—probably because they did not dare to discard terms so long established and so familiar.
But whilst retaining the terms they protested against the meanings attached to them by the Catholics, and, insisting on the etymological signification, used them, and desired that in future they should be used, to denote, not ministers empowered to offer sacrifice, but pastors set over their flocks, to teach them, to administer to them such Sacraments as they believed in, and generally to tend them spiritually. This meaning they professed to regard as that of Scripture and of the Primitive Church, which explains the language of the Preface of your Ordinal. […]
Thus the mere employment of the terms ‘priest’ and ‘bishop’ in one or two prayers in your rite would go for nothing, even if in other respects those prayers, or any of them, fulfilled the requirements of an essential form.
Ibid., Chapter 27)
Davies xix
Davies 209
Davies 209. In passing, we should note Davies’ interpretive gloss here. By saying that the “essential form” was “virtually” unchanged, Davies is conceding that it was not actually unchanged. This actual change raises problems which are outside the scope of this piece. But in brief:
Even if the form used were actually identical, Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution did not state that this form would be valid outside the context of the traditional rite of priestly ordination.
Even if the form used were actually identical, or substantially identical in meaning, it is not clear that the signification of this form would remain sufficiently determined in the context of a rite which had been changed along similar lines to the Anglican Ordinal or the NRPO. After all, if the traditional rite determined the indeterminate form based on its Catholic connotation, an Anglican or new rite may determine it in a different sense, if it has been changed so as to exclude the determining Catholic connotation. This problem is exacerbated by Pope Pius XII’s requirement that the form used be “accepted and used by the Church in [the relevant] sense.”
Further, as already noted, a prayer similar but not identical to Pius XII’s form appears in Paul VI’s NRPO. Whether the difference is sufficient to constitute a substantial change in meaning is an open question. In any case, Davies concedes that Paul VI’s form requires something further to determine its signification and thus render it capable of validly conferring the priesthood. If the form has been changed to something new, and yet left indeterminate, it seems clear that it should be determined according to the signification of the rite as a whole.
Cf. Leeming:
This discussion, however, concerns the intention only in cases where the usual rite of the Church is used. If the rite is changed, then the minister who uses that rite is presumed to conform his intention to that of the body which uses the changed rite, and examination must be made of the reasons why the changes were introduced, and of the nature of the changes in their whole context. To enter into details here would carry matters beyond our present scope, and it must be enough to repeat the generally accepted principle that the minister who uses a rite is presumed to intend what is expressed in the rite, and that this is a presumption not easily overthrown. (Principles of Sacramental Theology, Bernard Leeming, 495)
Davies 83-4
Davies 209
Francis Clark SJ, Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1956, p 175
Clark 177
Daly 370
Davies 109
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, n. 26
Daly, 370
Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay OP, ‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’, published in The Angelus from Sel de la Terre, No. 54, Autumn 2005, pp 72-129. Standalone edition, p 26.
Davies 227
Davies 99-100.
Leo XIII n. 31
Davies 227
In Daly, pp 367-8
Ibid. 369
Ibid. 369-70
Leo XIII n. 24
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, n. 3
Daly 402
Davies 233
Davies 232
Apostolicae Curae n. 33. Leo XIII goes on to say:
On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
Clark argues forcefully that the change in view here is on the part of individual ministers who make a change, rather than on the fact of using a rite which is not approved by the Church—especially if it is used in good faith. In such circumstances, the “general Christian intention” may be sufficient for validity, providing that there are no positive exclusions of something essential to the sacrament, and that there are no problems with the matter or form used.
Further, Fr Calderon argues that, in those rites whose particulars were not determined by Christ himself, it is strictly necessary that the rite be determined by the Church; he implies that a rite which might otherwise be valid if accepted by the Church will be invalid unless the rite has been explicitly determined by the Church:
But in the other sacraments, whose ultimate determination was left to the Church, it is not enough for the essential rite to comply with what divine institution requires. Rather, a rite accepted by the Church (ab Ecclesia receptus) must be used, because only she has the authority to legitimately establish such determination. […]
The use of a rite ab Ecclesia non receptus implies not only a defect of intention, but also a defect of form. For sacraments whose essential rite has not been specifically determined by Jesus Christ, the form must not only be true, i.e. have the proper meaning of the words according to the divine institution, but must also be legitimate, i.e. have been determined in its words by the ecclesiastical institution.
My thoughts always revert to the implications such articles as these bring out. Like why would one refuse to implement a simple solution being offered to resolve the problem being discussed and at least on their part be part of the remedy by availing of the means presented to do so?
The answer may well be found in the personal trauma such an admittance of the possible invalidity of one's own Orders might cause. But one would not be declaring that their ordination was actually invalid, rather only possibly invalid.
The good that would arise from such an act of conditional consecration would be enormous not just for the priest but also for numerous laity who would have at least one more priest from whom they could receive the sacraments without scruple. Think of the ensuing benefits if every priest ordained in the new rite we're to receive conditional ordination. Not only would traditional following Catholics benefit but also numerous Novus Ordo Catholics even if unknown by them.
I tend to read controversial theology articles as an analyst, thinking to myself as I read this particular article, “How would an antisedevacantist reply to this or that argument.” I appreciated that as I progressed through the article, those hypothetical objections were already anticipated and engaged, rather than leaving the reader wondering, “I wonder how he would have addressed the ex adiunctis argument, etc.”. As that tends to be your habitual style, I’m not surprised that you are so infrequently challenged. In fact, the only challenge I can recall is the recent one by Matt Gaspers mostly unsuccessful rebuttal (ie., his only argument which was not already pre-empted or addressed was the quote from Billuart) to Mr. McCusker’s argument from public heresy.
I’m hoping that some day, you guys will compile these articles in book form for sale. This quality and caliber of writing on the subject matter is today unique to you, at least in the English-speaking world. I’d be the first to but it.
Keep up the outstanding work!