Classic study admits invalid rites would NOT destroy hierarchy
In his classic study defending the new rites of holy orders, Fr Pierre-Marie OP himself rejected the objection that, if they were invalid, then the hierarchy would have been destroyed.
An allegedly unanswerable argument proving validity
When the validity of the new sacramental rites is discussed—particularly those of holy orders—it is very common to hear one particular objection, sometimes phrased as a rhetorical question.
It is generally presented as if it proves, by a reductio ad absurdum, that the new rites of ordination and consecration must be valid.
For example, a priest of a certain traditionalist order presented this objection in a YouTube video on the topic of the validity of the new rites of ordination/consecration:
“If there are no valid priests and bishops in most of the world, if most of those priests and bishops are imposters who don't actually have the priestly or episcopal character, well then what’s left of the hierarchy as it’s always been understood by the Church?”1
After asking this rhetorical question, the priest in the YouTube video moved immediately on to discuss a different matter, evidently believing that no answer was possible or worth considering.
In fact, there is an answer to this objection—and it was given by none other than Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay OP of the Avrillé Dominicans, in France.
It appeared in his 2005 study ‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ?’—which translates into English as ‘Is the new rite of episcopal consecration valid?’2
In this study, Fr Pierre-Marie argues that the new rite of episcopal consecration is indeed valid, at least in its Latin form. To his credit, the Fr Pierre-Marie refuses to allow such a faulty argument to be marshalled in defence of his thesis.
Fr Pierre-Marie’s study
Fr Pierre-Marie’s study was translated and published by the American magazine The Angelus in December 2005 and January 2006. Its new title (‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’) was an intriguing reframing of the issue.
Since that time, nearly everyone who defends the validity of the new rites cites Fr Pierre-Marie’s study to do so.
There is much to say about this foundational study. There have been many rebuttals and refutations, none of which have prevented those who wish to rely on it from doing so.
I do not propose to enter into the field of rebuttals and refutations here, although we could note in passing that the strongest rebuttal may be the Avrillé Dominican’s implicit distancing of themselves from it, and their citation of Fr Álvaro Calderón’s study in its place.
In place of an adversarial approach to Fr Pierre-Marie’s study, I would like to highlight some key points within it, which appear to have been forgotten or overlooked today, especially by those who cite the study in defence of allowing men ordained/consecrated in the new rites to minister to the traditionalist faithful.
The objection already addressed and answered
Fr Pierre-Marie posed the common objection as follows:
“For the 37 years that have elapsed since this rite was promulgated, most of the Roman Rite bishops of the Catholic Church have been ordained with it. There is certainly not a single resident bishop (a bishop having the power of jurisdiction) who was ordained before 1968.
“Consequently, if the new rite is invalid, the Roman Church is deprived of a hierarchy, which would seem contrary to the promises of Christ (‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against her’).”3
Here is how Fr Pierre-Marie answers this objection:
“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.”4
Thus, Fr Pierre-Marie refutes the strict logic of the objection. For this reason, raising this objection is not fitting for those who otherwise cite this study as if it were the last word on the subject, or as if the broader questions have already been settled.
Fr Pierre-Marie’s corollary—caution in proclaiming what is impossible
However, what should we make of his resulting scenario (viz., that the hierarchy of jurisdiction continues almost exclusively in the Eastern rites) “seems hardly compatible” with what we would expect from Providence’s care for the Roman Rite?
An opinion that something “seems hardly compatible” is hardly a definitive statement. We could also agree that this situation “seems hardly compatible” in the sense that, had it not happened, we might also have been inclined to think that it could not happen.
But of course, we would say the same about other events which definitely have occurred in the life of the Church, including the Great Western Schism, the Protestant reformation—and the entire Vatican II revolution itself.
All this calls to mind the word of Fr Edmund James O’Reilly, who was:
Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of Ireland, Dublin
Provincial of the Irish Province of the Society of Jesus from 1863-70.
He was also described as “one of the first theologians of the day” and a “great authority” by Cardinal John Henry Newman.5
In The Relations of the Church to Society: Theological Essays, O’Reilly discussed the Great Western Schism, and warned against the incautious assumption of what evils God may or may not permit to affect the Church:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.
“Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning.
“We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever.
“All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”6
The application to the current situation is clear. Fr Pierre-Marie states that the “systematic invalidity” of the new rites would not in itself involve the destruction of the hierarchy, because it is a matter which primarily affects the Roman rite, and only indirectly affects the Eastern rites.
But when faced with a dilemma between (a) clear conclusions drawn from traditional sacramental theology, and (b) something which “seems hardly compatible” with what we might expect of providence, we must choose (a).
Further, what certainly cannot happen is that the fundamental theses of traditional sacramental theology be proven false. But proving the new rites to be valid would either prove this, or at least give rise to extremely difficult questions. This has implications no less troubling for the Church’s indefectibility, and is therefore not much of a solution to an objection based on this indefectibility.
There are other problems here, in that systematically invalid sacramental rites cannot be said to have come from the Church. However, these problems are no more serious than odious, dangerous, or non-Catholic rites or laws coming from the Church—as appears to be the case with what has followed Vatican II.
We have resolved both issues, with particular reference to the words of Archbishop Lefebvre and his sons, elsewhere.
Conclusion
In this piece, we have seen that if we set aside an adversarial approach, we can see that that Fr Pierre-Marie rejects the logic of this common objection which is supposed to establish, by a reductio ad absurdum, the validity of the new rites.
For that reason, raising this objection is not fitting for those who cite this study as if it were the last word on the subject and as if the broader questions have already been settled.
Let us instead stay focused on the questions at hand—namely:
Are the new rites of ordination/consecration certainly valid “on paper”? (And how can this be reconciled with traditional sacramental theology, if so?)
Is it necessary to adopt a systematic programme of the conditional ordination/consecration of clerics whose orders depend on the validity of the Novus Ordo rites?
Many assume that if these rites are certainly valid, then the a systematic programme of conditional ordination/consecration is not necessary.
We should note—as Fr Pierre-Marie himself does in this very study—that this is not so—for reasons discussed at length elsewhere.
Having dispatched the objection about the effect of these new rites on the continuity of the hierarchy, what else can we note about the 2005 study? There are a few key points to note:
Despite being sure of his own conclusions, Fr Pierre-Marie affirms the practice of conditionally ordaining/consecrating those ordained in the new rites.
Fr Pierre-Marie states that, contrary to some claims, there is no evidence that Archbishop Lefebvre studied the issue; and he thus rejects the idea that Lefebvre’s words or silence, acts or omissions can produce anything other than probable arguments for validity.
As mentioned, the Avrillé Dominicans have since distanced themselves somewhat from the study in a variety of ways, and emphasised the practical arguments for doubt and for conditional ordination/consecration on several occasions.
We shall discuss these points in a further piece.
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:
‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ?’ Sel de la Terre, No.54., Autumn 2005. Available in French here.
Fr Pierre-Marie 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 7.
The original French:
Depuis 37 ans que ce rite a été promulgué, la plupart des évêques de l’Église catholique de rite romain ont été sacrés par lui. Il n’y a sans doute plus un seul évêque résidentiel (un évêque ayant le pouvoir de juridiction) qui ait été sacré avant 1968. Par conséquent, si le nouveau rite est invalide, l’Église romaine est privée de hiérarchie, ce qui semble contraire aux promesses du Christ (« les portes de l’enfer ne prévaudront pas contre elle »).
pp 83.
Ibid, 26.
The original French:
Sans doute si le nouveau rite était systématiquement invalide, l’Église catholique serait dans un piteux état. Toutefois elle ne serait pas sans aucune hiérarchie.
En effet il resterait les évêques de rites orientaux qui continueraient de bénéficier d’une ordination valide.
Et dans l’Église romaine, il resterait les évêques de la Tradition et – pour combien de temps ? – quelques vieux évêques ordonnés selon l’ancien rite, tous évêques non résidentiels.
L’Église, si le nouveau rite était invalide, ne serait pas absolument sans hiérarchie : toutefois il y aurait une déficience quasi totale de la hiérarchie dans l’Église romaine ce qui semble difficilement compatible avec l’assistance spéciale de la Providence sur cette Église, mère et maîtresse de toutes les Églises.
pp 118-9
John Henry Cardinal Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Chapter 9.
Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society, 287-8. London, 1878.