Yes, it runs contrary to arguments I have heard (and repeated) for the validity of the new rites, based on the fact that Paul VI (and Pius XII) designated the the entire prefaces as the forms, with the short texts as being essential for validity. Not that I was repeating them to defend their validity, merely to show that the positive arguments for invalidity are perhaps not as clear as thought. Kröger touches on those arguments.
I would like to know more about this work “Apostolic Tradition” by Hippolytus. My understanding is that Dom Botte (who drafted the NREC) relied upon it, but for some reason had to defer to the Coptic rite of episcopal consecration (ie., because there were gaps, omissions, competing versions in the extant copies of Apostolic Tradition, or what?) in order to complete his new rite.
I know that Hippolytus was an antipope and schismatic, who later died (martyred, I believe) reconciled to the Church, way back in the early 3rd century, and wonder when Apostolic Tradition was authored (during his schismatic or Catholic years, and whether that answer would affect the theological contents of that work)?
In any case, supposing that Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus accurately preserved and recounted the early pre-schismatic Coptic rite of episcopal consecration approved by the Church, Fr. Cekada (in his article “Saved by Context?”) notes that Dom Botte/Paul VI deliberately excised words specifying the power to ordain priests, etc).
What all this seems to indicate, is that the NREC may be loosely “based” on an approved rite of the Church, but (supposing Fr. Cekada is accurate) it is not a faithful reproduction of the essential form of that rite (ie., the deliberate excisions having removed the necessary specificity).
Definitely an area of interest and for further study for me.
I find the analysis of the essential form very interesting, with some good points.
Yes, it runs contrary to arguments I have heard (and repeated) for the validity of the new rites, based on the fact that Paul VI (and Pius XII) designated the the entire prefaces as the forms, with the short texts as being essential for validity. Not that I was repeating them to defend their validity, merely to show that the positive arguments for invalidity are perhaps not as clear as thought. Kröger touches on those arguments.
I would like to know more about this work “Apostolic Tradition” by Hippolytus. My understanding is that Dom Botte (who drafted the NREC) relied upon it, but for some reason had to defer to the Coptic rite of episcopal consecration (ie., because there were gaps, omissions, competing versions in the extant copies of Apostolic Tradition, or what?) in order to complete his new rite.
I know that Hippolytus was an antipope and schismatic, who later died (martyred, I believe) reconciled to the Church, way back in the early 3rd century, and wonder when Apostolic Tradition was authored (during his schismatic or Catholic years, and whether that answer would affect the theological contents of that work)?
In any case, supposing that Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus accurately preserved and recounted the early pre-schismatic Coptic rite of episcopal consecration approved by the Church, Fr. Cekada (in his article “Saved by Context?”) notes that Dom Botte/Paul VI deliberately excised words specifying the power to ordain priests, etc).
What all this seems to indicate, is that the NREC may be loosely “based” on an approved rite of the Church, but (supposing Fr. Cekada is accurate) it is not a faithful reproduction of the essential form of that rite (ie., the deliberate excisions having removed the necessary specificity).
Definitely an area of interest and for further study for me.
Yes it's a great topic. Hope to publish more in due course.