'Painful uncertainty'—new rite of holy orders critiqued in 1978 by Athanasius Kröger OSB
This Una Voce group was publishing some very daring material in the early days.
This Una Voce group was publishing some very daring material in the early days.
Editor’s Notes
In his foundational study into the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC) promulgated in 1968 by Paul VI, Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay wrote the following:
In 1978, a certain Fr. Athanasius Kröger, O.S.B., published a study in the Una Voce Korrespondenz (Vol. 2, pp. 95-106), in which he raised doubts about the validity of episcopal consecrations accomplished with the new rite. According to him, the new form was not specific enough, and it created a situation analogous to that of the Anglican ordinations that were declared null and void by Pope Leo XIII.
What follows is a new translation of Kröger’s study.
Who was Athanasius Kröger?
Fr Athanasius Kröger was a Catholic author known for his contributions to theological discussions in the 20th century. He authored several works, including:
Mensch und Person: Moderne Personbegriffe in der katholischen Theologie (1968)
Man and Person: Modern Concepts of Personhood in Catholic Theology
Erbsünde überholt? Die Erbsündelehre des Konzils von Trient und neuere katholische Auffassungen über die Erbsünde
Is Original Sin Outdated? The Doctrine of Original Sin According to the Council of Trent and Recent Catholic Interpretations of Original Sin
Kröger contributed to theological discussions through articles such as “Reflections on the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II” (Una Voce, 1979) and “The Norm of God and Human Rights” (Beda-Kreis, 1979).
The Fœderatio Internationalis Una Voce (or FIUV)—in whose journal the following study appeared—was established in 1964 in order to promote the traditional Roman rite, but specifically under the auspices of the conciliar hierarchy. Its current president is Joseph Shaw, of the English Latin Mass Society, and it counted Michael Davies amongst its former presidents.
It may seem remarkable to see a study questioning the validity of the NREC appearing in the Una Voce journal. It would be unthinkable for such a study to appear in an Una Voce publication today.
But in fact, this journal published a number of other critical studies by Kröger, dealing with other reformed sacramental rites, including:
The consecration of holy oil—not a sacrament, but essential for other sacraments.
This article also disproves the idea that concerns about the validity of the new sacramental rites is limited to sedevacantists.
Kröger’s article is still available on the German Una Voce archive today. Their archive reveals that the early “traditionalist movement”—even the Una Voce groups, which were historically aiming to stay in good standing with the modernists—was producing serious studies, and asking daring questions.
Kröger’s ‘Theological Reflections’ on the NREC
In this study Fr Kröger examines the theological implications of the NREC, considering:
How the traditional formula explicitly conveyed the fullness of the episcopal office, while the new formula, centred on the phrase Spiritus principalis, lacks clear sacramental designation.
How the origins of the new formula in the so-called Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus introduce ambiguity rather than clarity, failing to meet the Church’s requirement for precise sacramental form.
What the distinction between the hierarchy of orders and the hierarchy of jurisdiction reveals about the episcopate, and why the NREC does not explicitly confer the power of orders.
He concludes that the 1968 rite, by neglecting the ontological reality of episcopal consecration, creates a “painful uncertainty” in sacramental theology in an unprecedented way. Where the Church’s teaching had long been clear, the new formula has returned to ambiguity, undermining the principle that the Church’s liturgy must reflect her doctrine.
Some caveats
Kröger’s study is not perfect. For example, some of its contentions were indeed answered by Fr Pierre-Marie; he also treats documents of Vatican II as having value and authority in settling such a question.
Nonetheless, this remains an important text for a few reasons:
Its date, arriving just 10 years after the promulgation of the NREC
Its place of publication, being the journal of a leading international “indult” group
It is also important for its readership, which included Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—but that is a topic for another day.
S.D. Wright
Theological Reflections on the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (NREC)
P. ATHANASIUS KRÖGER OSB
Una Voce Korrespondenz—1978, Vol. 2, pp. 95-106
The laying on of hands, as an external, physical act in the conferral of episcopal consecration, is universally recognised and self-evident [as constituting the essential outward sign of the sacrament], just as it is in priestly ordination.1
However, the sacramental words spoken during or after this act are not as self-evident. We shall confine ourselves here to examining these alone.
1. THE OLD CONSECRATORY PRAYER
“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum caelestis unguenti rore sanctifica”
“Complete in thy priest the fullness of thy ministry; adorned with the ornaments of entire glorification, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”2
A consecratory formula—in the strict sense—must contain that which, according to Christ’s institution, produces an internal, spiritual effect. Here, the designation of the effect is evident in the words “summa ministerii tui” (the fullness, the summation, the plenitude of authority in the service of Christ). A more precise rendering of “ministerium” is “office of service,” which consequently, in its entirety (Summe), points very clearly to the episcopate.
The two other designations may sound somewhat poetic, but they are also applicable to episcopal consecration: the endowment with the adornment of glorification. In this context, glorificatio signifies the fullness of the office's endowment. The same applies to the “sanctification with the dew of heavenly anointing,” though this is a very general expression that could also be used in reference to other anointings.
2. THE NEW CONSECRATORY PRAYER
“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.”
Our translation: “And now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from thee, the principal Spirit, which thou gavest to thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ, which he himself gave to the holy Apostles, who established the Church in every place as thy sanctuary, for the unceasing glory and praise of thy name.”3
The text originates from the Coptic and Syrian rites but ultimately derives from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus in the early third century.
3. THE ‘SPIRITUS PRINCIPALIS’
In the new formula, the sacrament’s effect is discernible only in two words: “Effunde ... eam virtutem ... Spiritum principalem.” It is unnecessary to dwell on the term “power” (virtus), as it is inherently broad, and because “that power” (eam virtutem) is defined relatively, namely, “that which is from thee, the Spiritus principalis.” This term requires further examination.
If Spiritus is capitalised—as in the rite—it can actually only refer to the Third Divine Person. Thus, “that power” is given (poured out), “which is from thee (Father)” (proceeding from the Father within the Trinity), namely, the “principal Spirit.” The chosen one receives the Holy Ghost himself. But the Holy Ghost is God. God himself is given. There is certainly an indwelling of God that is attributed (appropriated) to the Holy Ghost. But at the same time, it is a very general manner of speaking, by which the effect in the soul would not be expressed at all. A sacrament must effect something. In the ordination formula for priestly ordination, there is a similar manner of speaking, except that in the first sentence the essential element, namely the effect, is clearly stated.
To refer to the Holy Spirit Himself as the "Spiritus principalis" is unusual and presents its own difficulties. Terms such as “Spirit of truth” or “Spirit of love” are familiar from Pentecostal prayers. In these cases, the attribute can consistently and readily be identified with a divine attribute, which, however, can only be achieved with great difficulty in the case of “principalis.”
Principalis means the initial, original, foremost; the preeminent, chief; princely, imperial; or even a man holding the highest governmental office in a city. In older German usage, Prinzipal referred to a master craftsman or business manager.4 What, then, does principalis mean in the Latin text?
One searches for other places in the rite where this word also appears. There, one finds the sentence just before the consecration formula.
“Deus..., qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes”
“God, who hast appointed princes and priests.”5
These principes likely have nothing to do with the "Spiritus principalis."
One also finds, in the model address, which is not obligatory (quod facere potest), the following:
“Thus, from generation to generation, the principalis traditio has been preserved through the continuous succession of bishops.”6
This phrasing, too, is unclear. One must link the attribute to its substantive, which would yield something like: the most distinguished transmission. If principalis is intended to mean the episcopate, if it is supposed to indicate the transmission of the “highest degree of ordination,” then one could easily have chosen clearer terms for that.
A “distinguished, eminent spirit” is surely not intended, for that would imply a particular aptitude or character of the future bishop, which fundamentally has nothing to do with ordination. One might also think of the Apostle Peter, who is referred to in the liturgy as the princeps Apostolorum (“prince of the Apostles”). This does not mean that he is an “Apostle-prince,” but rather that he possesses a pre-eminence of dignity and origin, granted to him by Christ. Still, that precedence could be meant, although one would have to force this interpretation somewhat into the Latin Spiritus principalis.
But now one must recall the origin of “Spiritus principalis.” It appears verbatim in Psalm 50 (verse 14, Vulgate) and there signifies a “magnanimous spirit”: “Strengthen me with a magnanimous spirit.” However, if one consults the Hebrew original, one finds a willing or noble spirit (ruah nedîbâ). The Greek translation has pneuma hēgemonikon. This is precisely the expression used by Hippolytus, from whom the new consecration formula is derived. Therefore, one ought to begin there in order to accomplish the interpretation. The phrasing is fairly close to the Latin, and thus one encounters the same difficulties. Hēgemonikon can be something leading or directing, but also the “summit of the soul” in a spiritual-mystical realm—for instance, in Origen. A translation as “spirit of leadership” is possible. If one considers the meaning of episcopal consecration, whatever is ascribed to this spirit7 must be some quality, something granted from above to the newly consecrated. This, however, raises the difficulty that in such a case Spiritus would, in any event, have to be written in lowercase.
4. THE OFFICIAL GERMAN CONSECRATION FORMULA
The officially commissioned German translators apparently experienced no particular difficulties.
But they made changes!
“Send down upon this chosen one the power that proceeds from you, the spirit of leadership, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He conferred the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and they established your sanctuary, the Church, throughout all the earth, for the endless praise and glory of your name.”8
Here, we have first “the spirit of leadership,” and the same question arises as in Latin: in what way does the sending down of the “spirit of leadership” confer the divinely bestowed “episcopal dignity”? One instinctively thinks of a “gift for leadership,” a personality endowed with apt character.
However, this is probably not what the German text intends, since it goes on to say that Jesus Christ conferred the “Holy Ghost” upon the Apostles. The “Holy Ghost” is missing in the Latin text.
Yet Spiritus principalis is said to have first been given to the Son of Man, Christ as man—who, in turn, passed it on to the Apostles. The repeated quem is unequivocally related to the Spiritus principalis. In German, from the second quem onward, a new sentence is formed, with quem translated as “Heiligen Geist” [Holy Ghost]. If, on account of official approval, one is permitted to rely on the German text to interpret the Latin, it becomes entirely clear that “Spiritus principalis” is the “Spiritus Sanctus” [Holy Spirit]. Then, the consecration formula would include the general manner of referring to the imparting of the Holy Spirit, without any particular effect in the interior of the ordinand being specified.
5. HIERARCHY OF ORDERS AND HIERARCHY OF JURISDICTION
However, another objection arises against interpreting the Spiritus principalis as a “spirit of leadership” or a “spirit for guiding and directing the flock.” This would lead to the level of jurisdiction, implying superiority and subordination. But this is not conveyed in episcopal consecration! One must necessarily distinguish the hierarchia ordinationis (hierarchy of orders) from the hierarchia iurisdictionis (hierarchy of jurisdiction). A bishop stands higher than a simple priest through his consecration, as he now possesses the full power of orders. He can ordain priests, consecrate bishops and administer holy confirmation. These are spiritual powers that have nothing to do with jurisdiction. No governing authority is inherently associated with them.
Even in the new rite, spiritual power is explicitly mentioned. In the model address, it states: “The fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred.”9 After the actual consecration formula, there is mention of the “supreme priesthood” (summum sacerdotium), which is officially rendered in German as “Bischofsamt” [“episcopate”]. During the anointing with chrism, the prayer says: “God, who has granted you a share in the high priesthood of Christ (efficit)...”10
Accordingly, the episcopate, in the sense of the hierarchy of orders, is present in the rite but, unfortunately, not—or at best only very unclearly — in the actual consecration formula, in its essential words (verba essentialia). Liturgists often remark that the Christians of antiquity, and even today the Orientals, do not focus as much on the “point-like” pronounced words of the consecration formula but on the whole, on the entire Oratio Consecrationis in its broader sense, and especially on the conferral of the Holy Spirit. To this, one can only reply: the determination of sacraments by matter and form has long been a settled doctrine of the Church.11 This can also be expressed as “word and thing,” meaning an external action and the meaningful words accompanying it. Paul VI, however, retained the traditional terminology, as did Pius XII.12 After declaring his intention to “determine with supreme apostolic authority the matter and form for the conferral of each order,”13 he states specifically regarding episcopal consecration:
“Finally, in episcopal consecration, the matter is the laying on of hands... The form consists of the words of the consecration prayer, of which the following pertain to the essence of the rite (ad naturam rei) and are required for validity: ‘Et nunc effunde... tui.’”14
He thus strictly confined the essential words to the Hippolytus formula. This consecration prayer is further emphasised because, according to the rubrics, it must be recited by all co-consecrating bishops.15 What is prayed before or after that has—at least in principle—no influence on the validity or invalidity of episcopal consecration. Had Paul VI not so precisely delineated the consecration formula, but had rather designated the entire Oratio Consecrationis in its broader sense, the question of validity would be easier to resolve. However, he would then have had to restore the pre-Pian state of affairs (prior to 1947). But he did not wish to do so; rather, he adhered to his decision quite firmly. If one wishes to accuse him of a “scholastic narrowing,” i.e., making the validity of the consecration depend entirely on a single phrase, one must direct such criticism at Paul VI himself.
Nevertheless, as a theologian, one still seeks a way to resolve the uncertainty of the Hippolytus formula. If, within the broader context of the entire consecration prayer, something is found that expresses episcopal dignity, it could potentially eliminate the ambiguity. Two sentences following the established “forma sacramenti” stand out:
“You have chosen your servant for the episcopate (quem elegisti ad Episcopatum), to lead your people and serve you day and night as a blameless high priest (ut... summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat...).”
“Episcopate” and “high priesthood” are certainly fitting expressions. However, the phrasing is inadequate insofar as it neither commands imperatively, “Receive the episcopate... the high priesthood...,” nor does it deprecatively invoke God to grant the consecration. Instead, the text is constructed in a way that presupposes the consecration has already occurred. The perfect tense, “You have chosen,” cannot be understood otherwise.
Another sentence reads:
“Da, ut virtute Spiritus summi sacerdotii habeat potestatem dimittendi peccata secundum mandatum tuum ...”
“Grant him, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the high priestly authority to forgive sins in your name, to distribute offices according to your will, and to loose what is bound, as you granted it to the Apostles”
One might perhaps consider the first part of the sentence a sufficient expression for conferring the episcopal dignity, because it deprecatively implores the “high priestly authority.” Were the sentence to stand alone—“Grant him the high priestly authority”—it would be unequivocal. However, what is meant by this authority is further described:
To forgive of sins
To distribute of offices
To loose what is bound.
Unfortunately, with this circumscribed authority, the decisive point is not expressed—the power of orders. The mentioned authority to forgive sins belongs to every simple priest. The power to distribute offices is a juridical aspect that does not directly pertain to episcopal consecration.16 The power to loose is also predominantly understood in a juridical sense. One must think of Christ's promise, made to all the Apostles:
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:18)
It must be reiterated: the beginning of the above sentence could perhaps sufficiently express the conferral of episcopal consecration. But if this were, from a dogmatic perspective, the essential sacramental form, then it would be so contrary to the clearly expressed will of the legislator. One hesitates to give a definitive answer as to whether such a thing is admissible. The situation is entirely unprecedented.
Nevertheless, from general sacramental doctrine, it follows that a precisely fixed formula is not required for validity (ad validitatem). An episcopal consecration using the earlier formula would certainly be valid but not permitted; just as a sacramental absolution with the earlier formula of absolution would indeed effect the forgiveness of sins—valid, but not permitted.
6. THE INTENTION TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES
We must continue our inquiry from another angle. If, today, a bishop consecrates a priest as a bishop, he certainly intends to do what the Church does. His inner intention is as unmistakable as can be. Yet is this good intention sufficient?
If, at the consecration, a priest were to use the words: “This is Jesus, who is given up for you,” the consecration would be invalid. The sacramental transformation would not occur, even if the most honest will and the best intention to bring about Christ’s real presence were present. While this priest intends to do what the Church does, he does so in an “improved” manner, as he sees it. Such a thing is not impossible in our time.
With regard to episcopal consecration, we fortunately have a historical example that can contribute significantly to the solution: it is the declaration of Leo XIII concerning the validity of Anglican orders:
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form (forma propria) of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely (minime sane significant definite) express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (potestatem consecrandi et offerendi—Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This form [viz., the spoken ordination formula] had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” (ad officium et opus presbyteri) 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.
(In episcopal consecration, the addition to “Receive the Holy Spirit” reads: “…for the office and work of a bishop.”)17
Leo XIII thus states that the phrase “Receive the Holy Ghost” is inadequate, that by it alone no ordination to the priesthood or episcopate can be effected. One is inclined to apply this immediately to the new episcopal consecration, if it is truly certain that by the “Spiritus principalis” the Third Divine Person is meant. In that case, it would be Leo XIII himself who had already condemned the new formula in advance. His argument is very straightforward: this mutilated forma lacks the clearly defined designation (definita significatio). The Anglican ordination formulas, as such, would probably have been valid if the later additions had been in place from the outset. For therein lies the “clearly defined designation.” But among the Anglicans, the correct intention was also lacking: namely, to ordain someone as a priest or bishop in the Catholic sense.18
As far as the bishops are concerned, Leo XIII speaks of a “priesthood of a higher degree (praecellenti gradu sacerdotium), which is indeed, according to the voice of the holy Fathers as well as according to the usage in our ritual, called ‘high priesthood, the fullness of holy ministry’ (summum sacerdotium, sacri ministerii summa).”19 Each one of these three marks would in itself constitute a “clearly defined designation.” However, the new consecration formula—in the narrower sense—contains none of them.
Pius XII set forth the same requirements, in fact even more precisely, for the forma sacramenti. He speaks of the “effects” brought about by ordinations, which must therefore be indicated (significare debent). One finds these effects sufficiently designated in all rites “by the imposition of hands and by the words that determine this (verbes eam determinantibus).”20
The form, likewise, is one [just as the matter is one, viz. the laying on of hands]: the words that determine the application of this matter (verba applicationem huius materiae determinatia), by which the sacramental effects—namely, the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit—are signified univocally (quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales), and which are received and employed by the Church as such.
Hence, according to Leo XIII, the spoken words of the ordination formula must contain a definita significatio [clearly defined designation]; and according to Pius XII, “verba determinantia” or “univoca significatio” [determinative words or univocal meaning].
(In plain English: Words that give meaning or determine meaning for the laying on of hands, clearly pointing to the sacramental effects.)
The NREC of 1968 therefore presents a difficulty hitherto unknown. For the bishop who confers the ordination is doing exactly what the Church (at present) does, what the Church prescribes for him. The accompanying rites already leave no doubt that an episcopal consecration is intended: from the laying on of hands, to the anointing of the head with chrism, to the handing over of the ring, the mitre, and the staff. And yet, despite this, not everything is in order. In view of the text, one cannot avoid saying that the Church itself has prescribed something unclear and not unequivocally defining the meaning. This is an unprecedented situation!
In the Syrian and Coptic rites, which each look entirely different from the current Latin one, the situation is completely different. Even a simple reading reveals that, at the laying on of hands—in the Syriac-Maronite rite there are several impositions of hands—various prayers are recited, which contain enough words referring to the episcopate. This is especially true of the Hippolytan rite. There, after the prayer now known from Paul VI’s new formula (almost the same wording), God’s blessing is entreated upon…
“… your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, to shepherd your holy flock. May he exercise the highest priesthood before you without reproach...”21
It must now be considered that there are, in these ordination ceremonies, absolutely no prescriptions concerning matter and form! Not to this day, nor even among the communities united with Rome. We only have this in the Latin rite, and in fact only since 1947. For this reason, in the Eastern rites no doubt at all can arise about the validity of episcopal consecrations.22
Whether, in the ears of the Orientals, the mention of the “Spiritus principalis” immediately prompts an association with “bishop” is a separate question, which can be set aside here. In Latin and German [and English], at any rate, this is not the case. One must first learn what is contained in these two words, or supposed to be contained.
7. THE ONTOLOGICALLY IMPRINTED CHARACTER
From another perspective, one can say more about the “Spiritus principalis” by examining the difference between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction more precisely. For at ordination, every bishop receives an essential character, as noted by the Constitution of the Church of the Second Vatican Council:
A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. […]
In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation (ontologica participatio) in the sacred functions (munera); this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word "functions (munera)" is used deliberately instead of the word "powers [potestates]," because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. (de potestate ad actum expeditum). But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination (iuridica determinatio) through the hierarchical authority.23
It is obvious that the term “power” (potestas) can be misunderstood. On the other hand, however, the expression is at home in the dogmas. Bishops possess the power to confirm and ordain (potestatem confirmandi et ordinandi).24 This very clearly indicates the power of orders; not, for instance, the juridical power to take over a diocese as a governing bishop.
The stated “ontological participation” in the sacred offices is dogmatically precise. This formulation is also apt for priestly ordination. Through the imprinting of the indelible seal (character), one receives, in an ontological sense, a share in the priesthood of Christ, and so too does the bishop, in a higher way. This is the theological core from which all the faculties of the priest or bishop derive. Pius XI once stated quite clearly:
These august powers (potestates) are conferred upon the priest in a special sacrament designed to this end: they are not merely passing or temporary in the priest, but are stable and perpetual (stabiles atque perpetuae), united as they are with the indelible character (forma) imprinted on his soul whereby he becomes “a priest for ever” [Ps 110:4], whereby he becomes like unto him in whose eternal priesthood he has been made a sharer.
But along with this ... the priest receives new and special grace with special helps (adaugetur).25
The priestly character imprinted can “neither be erased nor taken away,” taught the Council of Trent.26
In his Sacramentum Ordinis, Paul VI quoted Lumen Gentium:
The sacred character is impressed (upon the bishop) (sacrum characterem ita imprimi.)27
No doubt can exist regarding the Church’s constant teaching on this point. Nevertheless, this fact is not—or only hintingly—reflected in the liturgical texts of both the old and the new rite. This deficiency particularly affects episcopal consecration.
We need not concern ourselves here with a closer explanation of the sacramental seal, especially its “location” in the human interior. There have been peculiar views given about this,28 aimed at invariably weakening its ontological dimension, attempting to reinterpret it psychologically or as a “mission,” which is wholly impossible. For one can never be a priest or a bishop “to a greater or lesser degree”; one either is one or is not—an absolute contradiction that admits no gradations.
Because this new element lies in the sacramental seal which the priest receives, or which the bishop obtains in a heightened and full measure, this must be what the rite intends, even if it is never explicitly stated. Only from the priestly-episcopal seal does the power of office, the authority to ordain, necessarily follow as a consequence. Should one therefore understand the sacramental ordination formula primarily in juridical terms, i.e. as the transfer of a leadership function, one would have to take immediate offence at that. If the “Spiritus principalis” thus signified leadership authority—which would primarily belong to the Holy Ghost and secondarily to the chosen bishop—this would be especially incorrect. Certainly, one might think that if a leadership role is conferred, then the imprinting of the sacramental seal and the communication of ordination power must be contained therein by implication. Yet to interpret everything correctly, one must resort to extremely forced and cumbersome explanations.29
For this reason, it would not only be expedient but, in our age of heresies, necessary that a dogmatic development long since completed should somehow find expression in an ordination formula. The usual “liturgical perspective” of selecting something very ancient ought not to be decisive at all. For that is no progress but a regression—a regression to an earlier lack of clarity that has long since been transformed into clarity in doctrinal terms. The conceptual tools exist to arrive at a precisely defined designation (definita significatio) in Leo XIII’s sense. By drawing on the earlier rite, a clear and unequivocal ordination formula could easily be established.
This would also set right the principle of lex orandi—lex credendi (the law of prayer determines the law of belief), because it can only be employed with great caution. Strictly speaking, it must be said: Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi—the law of prayer must be determined by the law of belief. Pius XII emphasised this very strongly.30
After a thorough theological consideration of the central point of the new rite, a painful uncertainty remains, one that cannot be dispelled. Out of the numerous innovations introduced into episcopal consecration, many may be welcomed for practical reasons; it is not our task here to comment on them.
The doctrinal shift is decisive. An official inconsistency lies in the background. For, on the doctrinal level, Paul VI very decisively highlighted the “ontological participation” of bishops in the priesthood of Christ. Indeed, it was he who, with papal insistence, inserted the Nota praevia into the Constitution on the Church, evidently because he feared errors of faith and sought to eliminate them.
On the other hand, not the slightest trace of this dogmatic clarification is found in the new rite. Evidently, the ancient formula of Hippolytus seemed more important to him than the substantial clarity of the rite!
English base text translated by AI, each line scrutinised by a human.
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:
De Ordinatione Diaconi, Presbyteri et Episcopi, ed. typ. Vatikan 1968. (Ord. 1968 hereafter) p. 70 no. 24.
Pontificale Romanum Summorum Pontificum etc., Rom-Marietti 1941. (Pont. 1941 hereafter), p. 63; cf. Pius XII., DH 3860.
Ord. 1968, Introduction p. 11; pp. 71–72 and p. 75 no. 26.
p 61
Ord. 1968, p. 74
Ord. 1968, p. 64, lines 5–7.
See p. 62
Liber de Ordinatione Diaconi, Presbyteri et Episcopi etc., editio linguae germanicae typica, Benzinger-Herder etc.; approved by the German bishops, 11/4/1971; confirmed by Cardinal Tabera, 11.5.1971. p 69.
Ordinis sacramenti plenitudo confertur, Ord. 1968, p. 64.
no. 28.
cf. DH 1262, 1312, 1671
DS 3859–3860
Ord. 1968, Introduction, p. 10
p. 11; see above, section 2
Ord., 1968, pp. 75 and 110
p 65
DS 3317
cf. DH 3317b, ed. 34 p. 831
DS 3317; cf. for these expressions Vatican II, LG 21, 2
DH 3858
Bernard Bote OSB, Hippolytus de Rome, La tradition apostolique d'après les ancienes versions, Paris-Cerf 2-1968, p. 44/45. Botte translates the ‘spiritus principalis’ as ‘Esprit souverain’.
p. 67
Lumen Gentium, Nota praevia, no. 2
DH 1777
Pius XI, Ad catholici sacerdotii, December 20, 1935 n. 15. DS 3756.
Trent, DH 1767.
Vatican II, LG 21, 2; cited by Paul VI in Ord. 1968, p. 8.
The letter of the German bishops on the priestly ministry (11 January 1969, Trier-Paulinus) shows a very poor understanding of the sacramental character of the priest; the being and function of the priest are not precisely distinguished.
p. 69
Encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, German-Latin ed. no. 47
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.