The Modern Roman Catholic Rite of Episcopal Consecration also known as the Bishop's "Ordination" are invalid
I. Principles to Apply
PRIMARILY for the benefit of lay readers, we will review some principles that are used to determine whether a sacramental form is valid. The concepts are not complicated.
A. What is a Sacramental Form?
In catechism class we all learned the definition of a sacrament: “An outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace.” “Outward sign” in the definition refers to what we see and hear when a sacrament is conferred — the priest pours the water on the baby’s head and he recites the formula “I baptize you,” etc. Catholic theology teaches that in every sacrament this outward sign consists of two elements joined together:
• Matter: some thing or action your senses can perceive (pouring water, bread and wine, etc.)
• Form: the words recited that actually produce the sacramental effect (“I baptize you…” “This is My body…,” etc.) Each sacramental rite, no matter how many other prayers and ceremonies the Church has prescribed for it, contains at least one sentence that either Catholic theologians or authoritative Church pronouncements have designated as its essential sacramental form.
B. Omitting the Form
All Catholics know verbatim at least one essential sacramental form: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If at a baptism, the priest says all the other prayers and performs all the other ceremonies, but omits this one formula when he pours the water, the sacrament is invalid (does not “work”), the grace promised by Christ is not conferred and the baby is not baptized. This much should be obvious.
C. Changes in the Form
But another question arises: What if the wording of a sacramental form is changed? How does this affect validity? The answer depends on whether a change in meaning also results. Theologians distinguish between two types of change:
(1) Substantial. (Meaning changed = invalid.)
This occurs “when the meaning of the form itself is corrupted… if the words would have a meaning different from that intended by the Church.” Or put another way: If the form “is changed in such a way that the meaning intended or willed by Christ is no longer completely and congruently expressed through it.”
A substantial change in a sacramental form is introduced through adding, omitting, corrupting, transposing, or exchanging words in the form, or by interrupting them in such a way that the form no longer retains the same sense.6 Here are two examples: • Corruption of words: A modernist priest says: “I baptize you in the name of the Mother, and of the Son…” He has introduced a new word that changes the meaning of one of the essential elements of the form — Father. The baptism is invalid.
• Omission of words: A nervous young priest who has not memorized the form says: “I baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son…,” omitting the word you. Or alternately, he says the word you, but omits the word baptize. Since a sacramental form must express in some way who is receiving the sacrament as well as the sacramental action itself, omitting the you or the baptize changes the meaning and renders the form invalid.
(2) Accidental. (Meaning same = still valid.)
This is a change that does not alter substantial meaning.
Example: Instead of saying “I baptize you…,” the priest says “I cleanse you in
the name of the Father…” Because he has merely substituted an exact
synonym for one of the words in the form (“baptize” is Greek for “cleanse”),
the meaning remained the same. The change was therefore only accidental.
The baptism was valid. This distinction between a substantial and an
accidental change will be a key concept in examining the validity of the 1968
form and the subsequent revision of Episcopal consecration. If the new form
constitutes a substantial
change in meaning, it is invalid.
D. Using an Eastern Rite Form
The forms the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church use to confer sacraments sometimes differ greatly in wording from those the Latin Rite uses. But the substantial meanings are always the same.
Example: The Ukranian Rite uses the following form for Baptism: “The servant
of God N. is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Amen.” This preserves each concept that theologians say must
appear in a valid form for baptism: the minister (at least implicitly), the act of
baptizing, the recipient, the unity of the divine essence, and the Trinity of
persons expressed under distinct names. In the case of an Eastern group that
has submitted to the pope, moreover, the Church has examined the prayers
and ceremonies of its sacramental rites to insure that they were free from
doctrinal error and contained everything necessary for conferring true
sacraments. So, if a bishop or priest confers a sacrament using a sacramental
form identical to one contained in a duly approved Eastern Rite ritual book,
one can be certain that the sacrament will be valid.
This principle will figure in our discussion as well, because Fr. Pierre-Marie bases much of his argument for the validity of the new rite on elements supposedly common both to Eastern Rite Episcopal consecration forms and the new form of Paul VI.
E. Requirements in a Form for Holy Orders
What specifically are we looking for in the new rite of Episcopal consecration? What must the words of a form for conferring Holy Orders express? Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, laid down the general principle when he declared that for Holy Orders these must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”
Note the two elements that it must univocally (i.e., unambiguously) express: the specific order being conferred (diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost. So we must therefore ascertain whether the new form is indeed “univocal” in expressing these effects.
F. Episcopal Consecration in Particular
In the same document, having laid down a general principle, Pius XII then declared that the following words, contained in the consecratory Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, were the essential sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy:
“Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.” This form univocally signifies the sacramental effects as follows:
(1) “The fullness of Thy ministry,” “raiment of all glory” = power of the Order of episcopacy.
(2) “The dew of heavenly anointing” = grace of the Holy Ghost.
The question is whether the new form does the same.
II.Origin of the New Rite
IN 1964 PAUL VI entrusted implementing the liturgical changes prescribed by Vatican II to a new Vatican agency known as the “Consilium.” This organization was composed of several hundred clergymen, divided according to their areas of expertise into thirty-nine “study groups.” The Secretary of Consilium and its real head was Fr. Annibale Bugnini, a liturgical modernist and alleged Freemason, who had written the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Study Group had the task of “reforming” the rites for Holy Orders. Its head was the Benedictine monk Dom Bernard Botte (1893–1980), a specialist in Oriental liturgical languages and another liturgical modernist.
His most famous academic achievement was a new scholarly edition of The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, a collection of ancient Christian liturgical texts. One of these would become the New Mass’s Eucharistic Prayer II — minus its original references to the devil, hell, the salvation of just believers alone, and the sacrificing priest. Dom Botte proposed that another text from this same collection be introduced into the Rite of Episcopal Consecration to replace the traditional consecratory Preface. The old Preface, he said, had “poor doctrinal content,” was oriented “almost exclusively towards the bishop’s liturgical role,” was a “hybrid formula, poorly balanced.” Something was needed that better expressed the theology of Vatican II.
The prayer for Episcopal consecration from Hippolytus, said Dom Botte, survived in “more evolved” versions in the Syrian and Coptic Eastern Rites. Used in the Roman Rite, he said, it also “would affirm a unity of outlook between East and West on the episcopacy” — i.e., thrill the eastern schismatics, who also used these rites. “This was an ecumenical argument. It was decisive.”
So Botte’s text, lifted nearly verbatim from his 1963 work, became the new Preface for Episcopal Consecration when Paul VI promulgated it in June 1968.
III. The Paul VI Form
Paul VI designated the following passage in the Preface as the new form for the consecration of a
bishop:
“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”
The dispute over the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration centers on this passage.
At first glance, it does seem to mention the Holy Ghost. However, it does not appear to specify the
power of Holy Order being conferred — the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy — that the traditional form so clearly expressed. So, is this new form capable of conferring the episcopacy?
To answer that, we will apply the principles outlined in section one. We proceed from stronger arguments for validity to weaker ones.
IV. An Eastern Rite Form?
Question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the
sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy?
If so, this would be the strongest evidence for arguing that the new form is valid. One could demonstrate that it therefore met the criteria Pius XII enunciated regarding the form for Holy Orders, because it would already be among the words “accepted and used by the Church in that sense.”
In his Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new rite, Paul VI says that new Preface for Episcopal Consecration is taken from The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (a document we shall discuss in section V), which continues to be used “in large part” for Episcopal consecrations by two Catholic Eastern Rites in particular: the Coptic and the West Syrian.
And indeed on this basis, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued: “The utilization of the form that is in use in two certainly valid Eastern rites assures its validity.”
But is the factual claim really true? Is the Paul VI form indeed in use in two Eastern Rites?
All one need do is (1) ascertain from theology books which Eastern Rite consecration prayers are
considered the sacramental forms, (2) look up those texts, and (3) compare them with the Paul VI form.
Two general points immediately emerge to defeat the Eastern Rite argument:
(1) The sacramental form that Paul VI prescribed for conferring the episcopacy consists of merely one sentence. Eastern Rite forms, however, consist of a
whole prayer, or even a series of prayers, several hundred words long. So on
the face of it, the Paul VI form — a mere 42 words long in Latin — cannot be
described as a form “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.”
(2) Nor could one even claim that the entire Paul VI Preface of Episcopal Consecration (212 words long in Latin) is somehow a form “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.” The Preface does indeed contain some phrases found in Eastern Rite forms — but there are significant omissions and variations. It is still not identical to any one of them.
So on both counts, the new form cannot be among the words “accepted and used by the Church” as a sacramental form for Holy Orders. Here are some of the details.
A. Coptic Rite Form?
This uniate group descends from monophysite heretics (= Christ has only one nature), who, after the Council of Chalcedon (451) went into schism, led by the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, and then went into a long decline.
By the 19th century, enough Copts had renounced their errors and submitted to the pope for the Holy See to organize them into their own uniate Rite. In 1898 their Synod decreed that, for the three major orders in the Coptic Rite, “the form is the actual prayer which the ordaining bishop recites while imposing hands on the ordinand.” The 19th-century dogmatic theologian Heinrich Denzinger, best known for his Enchiridion Symbolorum, a collection of dogmatic texts, also published a collection of Eastern Rite liturgical texts, the Ritus Orientalium. In his lengthy introduction to this work, Denzinger further specifies that the sacramental form for Episcopal consecration in the Coptic Rite “is the prayer Qui es, Dominator, Deus omnipotens, which in the ritual itself is called the [imposition-of-hands] prayer.”
Note the following:
(1) This prayer is a Preface about 340 words long in a Latin version. The Paul VI form is 42 words
long. The two forms, therefore, cannot be equated. (2) This lengthy Coptic form mentions three
specific sacramental powers considered proper to the order of bishop alone: “to provide clergy according to His commandment for the priesthood… to make new houses of prayer, and to consecrate altars.”
Though the Paul VI Preface surrounding the new form contains many phrases found in the Coptic form(including “governing spirit,” which we shall discuss below), these phrases are missing.
This omission is particularly significant, because the dispute over the validity of the Paul VI form revolves around whether it adequately expresses the power of the Order being conferred — i.e., episcopacy.
B. Maronite Rite Form?
In the 5th century, some Syrians became monophysite heretics, and (like the Copts) went into schism after the Council of Chalcedon. These are also known as “Jacobites,” after Jacob Baradai, who was clandestinely consecrated a bishop in the 6th century and organized their movement.
Other West Syrians who opposed the monophysites came to be called Maronites (after the monastery of St. Maron, their center). Most Maronites eventually settled in Lebanon and were known for their deep devotion to the Holy See. The Maronites adopted some externals of the Roman Rite (vestments, altar style, etc.) but continued otherwise to follow the Rite of Antioch, one of the ancient patriarchal sees.
According to Denzinger, the form for the episcopacy in the Maronite Rite consists of the prayers:
“Deus qui universam Ecclesiam tuam per istos pontifices in manus impositione exornas, etc., Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium.”
Comparing this with the Paul VI form reveals the following:
(1) The Maronite form is a Preface at least 370 words long, interspersed with impositions of the
bishop’s hand on the head of the candidate. It prays that the candidate receive the “sublime Episcopal order,”
with subsequent prayers twice begging God to “perfect” his grace and priestly ministry. This form
has nothing in common with the Paul VI form.
(2) On a following page of the Maronite Rite for Episcopal Consecration, there is a prayer that has some phrases in common with the Paul VI form (e.g. “governing Spirit”) and Preface (“loose bonds”) but, even though it occurs in the ceremony, this is not the Maronite sacramental form.
(3) The Maronite prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface of Episcopal Consecration is one found in the Rite for the Consecration of a Maronite Patriarch. And indeed Fr. Pierre-Marie reproduces much of the text to support arguments for the validity of the new rite.
However, this prayer is not a sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy. It is merely an installation prayer, because the Maronite Patriarch is already a bishop when he is appointed.
C. Syrian Rite Form?
From the 17th-19th centuries, various Syrian Jacobite bishops, including even a Patriarch of Antioch, abjured their errors and submitted to the Holy See. In the 19th century the pope set up a Syrian Rite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon. (In the mid-20th century, many Syrian Rite Catholics lived in Iraq.)
The Syrians, like the Maronites, follow the Antiochene Rite, but there are some differences.
The form for Episcopal consecration in the Syrian rite, according to Denzinger, consists of either the same prayers used by the Maronites, or another: “Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam,”30 recited after the Patriarch imposes his right hand on the ordinand’s head.
Once again, we compare this with the Paul VI form:
(1) The Syrian form is about 230 words long, versus 42 words in the Paul VI form. Again, it is not the same.
(2) In even greater detail than the Coptic form, the Syrian form enumerates specific sacramental powers considered proper to the order of bishop: May he “create priests, anoint deacons, consecrate altars and churches, bless houses, call forth vocations to ecclesiastical work.”
And once again, even though the Paul VI form and Preface contain some phrases present in the Syrian form (e.g., “governing… Spirit,” feed” [the flock], “loose bonds”), the foregoing expressions are absent.
(3) In the Syrian Rite as in the Maronite Rite, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI form and Preface is the one used for “consecrating” a Patriarch. Once again, however, it is not a sacramental prayer for consecrating a bishop, and this is clear from the following:
• The Syrian liturgical book prescribes the same order of service and prayers for consecrating a bishop and for consecrating the Patriarch, with but one change in the text. For the consecration of the Patriarch, the presiding bishop omits the prayer designated as the form for Episcopal consecration (the prayer Deus, qui omnia per potentiam tuam), and substitutes “the Prayer of Clement,” the text that resembles the Paul VI Preface.
• Two different terms in Syriac are used to distinguish the sacramental rite for the consecration of a bishop from the non-sacramental rite for the consecration of a patriarch. The first rite is called an “imposition of hands,” while the second is referred to with a term meaning “to confide or invest someone with a duty.”
A Syrian liturgist explains: “In the first case [Episcopal consecration], the ordinand receives a charism different from the one he already possesses… In the second, the Patriarch does not receive a charism different from the one he received at the time he was made a bishop.”
D. Not an Eastern Form.
We began this section with a question: Was the new form employed in a Catholic Eastern Rite as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy?
The answer is no, because:
• The Paul VI form is not identical to the Eastern Rite forms.
• In particular, the lengthy Eastern Rite forms mention either perfecting the priesthood or specific
sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (ordaining priests, etc.). The Paul VI form does not.
• In the Maronite and Syrian Rites, the prayer that most closely resembles the Paul VI consecration preface is not the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy, but a non-sacramental prayer for installing a Patriarch, who is usually already a bishop when he is appointed.
So, one cannot argue that the Paul VI form is valid because it is in use as a sacramental form “in two certainly valid Eastern Rites.” It is not among the words “accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” and there is no guarantee of validity on this basis.
V. Another Approved Form?
Question: Was the new form employed as the sacramental form for conferring
the episcopacy in some other rite in the past that enjoyed at least tacit approval
from the Church?
Such evidence, though not as strong a proof for validity as use in a Catholic Eastern Rite, would add at least some weight to the argument that the new form is valid.
Above, we mentioned that the Paul VI Preface for Episcopal Consecration was taken nearly verbatim from an ancient prayer for consecrating a bishop that appears in Dom Botte’s 1963 edition of The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus. It also has parallels in other ancient texts such as The Apostolic Constitutions and the Testament of the Lord. Fr. Pierre-Marie also employed these texts as evidence to argue that the new rite is valid. How much certitude can we have that (1) these texts themselves were actual sacramental forms used to confer the episcopacy, and (2) they received at least tacit approval from the Church as such — that even in a broad sense they were “accepted and used by the Church in that sense”?
Alas, if by “certitude,” we mean the certitude Catholic moral theology requires for conferring or receiving a valid sacrament, our answer must be: None at all. For we immediately descend into the mystifying world of scholarly debates over the authorship, origin, dating, reconstruction and deciphering of 1700-year old texts.
A. Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus?
Here are some of the preliminary problems we discover:
(1) Identity of Author?
The Jesuit expert on Eastern liturgies, Jean-Michel Hanssens, devotes nearly one hundred pages to trying to identify Hippolytus: Was he the same Hippolytus associated with an Easter computation table? The one represented by a statue? The one reputed to be a native Roman? Or the Egyptian one? The pope’s counselor? Or the anti-pope? The priest Hippolytus? Or a bishop? Or the martyr? Or one of the several saints in the martyrology? The best we can manage is scholarly conjecture.
(2) Origin?
Where did The Apostolic Tradition come from? Some say Rome; others say Alexandria, Egypt.
More conjecture.
(3) Age?
How old is it? “Usually” dated around 215 AD, but “the section dealing with ordination may
have been retouched by fourth-century hands in order to bring it into line with current doctrine and practice.”
Note: “retouched.” More scholarly conjecture is needed to tell us which parts of the document were retouched.
(4) Manuscript Authority?
How much confidence can we put in the originals? Well, we don’t even have them:
“The Greek original of the document has not survived, except in the form of a few isolated fragments.
[I]t has to be reconstructed from an extant Latin translation and from later Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, as well as from the use made of it by compilers of later Church orders, which increases the difficulty of determining exactly what the author wrote.” Hence, the subtitle of Dom Botte’s 1963 edition: An Attempt at Reconstruction. At least a half-dozen other scholars (Connolly, Dix, Easton, Elfers, Lorentz, Hanssens) have made similar attempts. Reconstruction, said Dom Botte, can “bring us back only to an archetype, and not the original.”
So, we have only more conjecture, but this won’t even get us the original.
(5) Liturgical Use?
Does the text accurately reflect actual use?
“It is not easy to distinguish what represents a real usage from the ideal,” said Dom Botte in 1963. The prayers The Apostolic Tradition contains were given as “models, and not as fixed formulas.”
And finally, said Dom Botte, in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, “Its origin, whether Roman or
[Egyptian] is not really important here. Even if it is a Roman document, it should not be viewed as the Roman liturgy of the 3rd century, a time when the liturgy left a great deal of room for a celebrant to improvise.” And so, multiple volumes of scholarly works produce a model for an Episcopal consecration prayer that was not necessarily followed word-for-word anyway. This does not exactly build our confidence.
B. Apostolic Constitutions?
An impressive title, to be sure. However, it is “a composite revision” of three earlier Church orders.
The Constitutions appears to have originated in Syria, “and is generally thought to be the work of an Arian [heretic] who was to some extent composing an idiosyncratic idealization rather than always reproducing exactly liturgical practice with which he was familiar.” A composite dreamed up by a heretic?
C. Testament of Our Lord?
An even more impressive title! Alas, it “probably” dates from the 5th century and “seems” to have been composed in Syria. Moreover, “Although originally written in Greek, it is extant only in Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic versions. Like the Apostolic Constitutions, it is doubtful how far it represents actual historical practice.”
Doubtful historical practice?
D. No Proof of Approved Use.
The question that began this section was: Was the new form employed as the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy in some other rite in the past that enjoyed at least tacit approval from the Church?
Our answer: We have absolutely no idea, because:
• We have no definitive original texts.
• We have “reconstructed” texts based on nothing more than the authority of scholarly theories about which readings were correct.
• We do not know whether these texts were actually used to consecrate bishops.
• We have no record of Church approval. So, one cannot argue on the basis of these texts
that the Paul VI form is valid. None of them have been “accepted and used by the Church in that sense,” so there is no guarantee of validity on this basis either.
VI. Power of the Episcopacy?
Question: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental
effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost?
These are the criteria Pius XII laid down for the sacramental form. Here again is the new form of Paul VI to which we will apply them:
“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom
you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”
The form does seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost. But “governing Spirit”? Lutheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops also govern. Can such a term univocally signify the power of Order conferred — the fullness of the priesthood? The expression governing Spirit — Spiritus principalis in Latin — is at the heart of the dispute over the validity of the new rite, for if it does not signify the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy, the sacrament is invalid.
A. Early Doubts about Validity
The casual reader will of course be tempted to dismiss this as some crackpot traditionalist fever
dream. But forty years ago, even before the new rite was promulgated, a member of the study group that created the new rite of Episcopal consecration raised just this issue.
In an October 14, 1966 memo, Bishop Juan Hervás y Benet (1905-1982), the Ordinary of Ciudad Real (Spain) and a promoter of Opus Dei, wrote to fellow study group members:
“It would be necessary to establish undeniably that the new form better and more perfectly signifies the sacramental action and its effect. That is to say, that it should be established in no uncertain terms that it contains no ambiguity, and that it omits nothing from among the principal charges which are proper to the Episcopal order.… A doubt occurs to me concerning the words ‘Spiritus principalis’; do these words adequately signify the sacrament?”
Whether he received an answer is not recorded. But consider what the bishop’s question implied at the time for anyone with serious theological training: Will introducing this expression in the form expose the sacrament to the risk of invalidity?
After Paul VI promulgated the new rite for Holy Orders in June 1968, it had to be translated into various modern languages. The expression Spiritus principalis immediately caused problems. The first official English translation rendered it as “excellent Spirit”; French, as “the Spirit that makes chiefs” or “leaders”; German, as “the spirit of a guide.” These expressions probably led some of the more conservative bishops at the time to fear for the apostolic succession, because Rome suddenly issued two declarations on the translation of sacramental forms within three months (October 1973 and January 1974).
The latter declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, moreover, was reprinted in Notitiae (the official publication of the Congregation for Divine Worship), accompanied by a rather strange commentary. The author, a Dominican, specifically mentioned Pius XII’s 1947 Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, the “substance of the sacraments,” how each new sacramental formula “continues to signify the special grace conferred by the sacrament,” and the need to “preserve the validity of the sacramental rite.”
A coincidence? In the same issue of Notitiae, about a dozen pages later, we come across a short article by Dom Bernard Botte OSB explaining the meaning of —surprise! — Spiritus principalis.
Clearly, this Latin expression had a lot of people worried.
B. Governing Spirit = Episcopacy?…
Dom Botte’s explanation of Spiritus principalis was essentially as follows:
• The expression “raised several difficulties” and led to various translations.
• It occurs in Psalm 50:14, but its meaning there is not necessarily linked to what the expression in the consecration prayer meant for the 3rd-century Christian.
• “Spirit” designates the Holy Ghost.
• But what did the Greek word hegemonicos and its Latin equivalent principalis mean in the Christian vocabulary of the 3rd century?
• It meant this: Each of the three Holy Orders has a gift of the Holy Ghost, but not the same for each. Deacons = “spirit of zeal and solicitude,” priests =“spirit of counsel.”
• Bishops have the “spirit of authority.”
• The bishop is both leader who must govern and high priest of the sanctuary. He is the ruler of the Church. So the word hegemonicos/principalis is understandable.
• Spiritus principalis therefore means the “gift of the Spirit proper to a leader.”
After this statement appeared, various vernacular translations were adjusted, and the official English translation became governing Spirit.
C. … or Governing Spirit = Who Knows?
So, it was a very erudite-sounding explanation. Unfortunately, it was false — a typical case of the brazen double-talk modernists excel at when they are caught out. Spiritus principalis can mean many things, but the “power of Order” proper to the episcopacy isn’t one of them. This becomes clear after a brief survey of what governing Spirit can signify, in either its Latin form
(Spiritus principalis) or its interchangeable Greek form (hegemonicos).
(1) Dictionaries. Latin and Greek dictionaries render the adjective governing as, respectively, “Originally existing, basic, primary… first in importance or esteem, chief… befitting leading men or princes,” and “of a leader, leading, governing” or “guiding.” There is a related noun, hegemonia, which in general means “authority, command,” and in a secondary sense means “rule, office of a superior: Episcopal… of a superior of a convent… hence of sphere of bishop’s rule, diocese.”
But even in this sense, it does not connote the power of Order (potestas Ordinis), just jurisdiction
(potestas jurisdictionis), especially since the definition mentions a monastic superior.
(2) Psalm 50. In ecclesiastical Latin or Greek, the first text usually cited for governing is King David’s prayer in Ps 50:14, where it is used with spirit. The expression is translated into English as a perfect spirit, which commentators explain as “a ‘generous’ or noble spirit.”
Despite Dom Botte’s claim that the meaning of governing Spirit in the Psalm was unrelated to its supposed 3rd century meaning in the prayer for Episcopal consecration, a Greek patristic dictionary directly links both passages and even quotes the Greek excerpt from Hippolytus.
(3) Church Fathers. They construe governing Spirit in various ways, as referring to the Father, the Holy Ghost, the virtue of fortitude, a mighty power that strengthens against temptations, etc.
(4) A Dogmatic Treatise. In his work on the Trinity Msgr. Pohle says that governing Spirit in the Psalm does not mean the Holy Ghost Itself, but nothing more than an “external divine effect,” a “supernatural spirit of rectitude and self-control, i.e., a good disposition.”
(5) A 1962 Commentary on Hippolytus. The ancient prayer for episcopal consecration, says Roger Beraudy, presents the bishop as both leader and high priest successively. Governing Spirit appears in the section of the prayer that presents the bishop as “leader of the Church,” rather than in the following section that Beraudy identifies as presenting “the bishop as high priest.”
(6) Non-Sacramental Ceremonies. The Coptic Rite, apart from its sacramental prayer for Episcopal consecration, also employs the expression governing Spirit in two non-sacramental ceremonies.
a. In the Coptic Church, as in the Catholic Church, an abbot is not a bishop, but merely a simple priest who is the head of a monastery. When a Coptic abbot (hegoumenos) is installed, the bishop imposes his hand on the priest’s head and says a prayer that God will grant the priest “a governing Spirit of gentleness and love and patience and graciousness.”
b. For the promotion of a Coptic bishop to the rank of archbishop (metropolitan), in which it is prayed that God pour forth his governing Spirit, “the knowledge which is Thine, which he hath received in Thy holy
Church.”
(7) Another Expert. And in 1969, before it became a matter of controversy, we find at least one expert who said that omitting the expression governing Spirit wouldn’t even necessarily alter the validity of the rite: “If one were to omit inadvertently the words spiritum principalem, I don’t see what that would change.” The expert? Dom Bernard Botte.
(8) Who Knows? Our brief survey, then, uncovered a dozen possible meanings for governing Spirit:
• Originally existing spirit.
• Leading/guiding spirit.
• Perfect spirit like King David.
• Generous or noble spirit.
• God the Father.
• God the Holy Ghost.
• An external divine effect.
• Supernatural spirit of rectitude/self control.
• Good disposition.
• For a Coptic abbot: gentleness, love, patience and graciousness.
• For a Coptic archbishop: divine knowledge, received through the Church.
• Some quality whose omission wouldn’t change validity anyway.
None of these specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that a bishop possesses.
D. Univocally Signify the Effect?
We now begin to apply a few more of our criteria from section I.
Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis declared that the form for Holy Orders
must “univocally signify the sacramental effects —that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.” The new form fails on two of these points.
(1) Not Univocal. The expression governing Spirit is not univocal — that is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing, as Pius XII required. Rather, as we demonstrated above, the expression
is ambiguous — capable of signifying many different things and persons.
We do, among its various meanings, find one meaning connoting the Holy Ghost — but not in a
sense exclusively limited to bishops. Coptic abbots, King David, and virtuous leaders can all receive this governing Spirit.
(2) No Power of Order. Among these many different meanings, however, we do not find the power of Order (potestas Ordinis) of the episcopacy. The expression governing Spirit does not even equivocally connote the Sacrament of Holy Orders in any sense. Still less does it connote what the theologians who advised Pius XII said the sacramental form for conferring the episcopate must express: the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the Episcopal office and order” or the “’fullness or totality’ of the priestly ministry.” One of the constituent elements for a form capable of conferring the order is therefore absent.
So, we have an answer to the question with which we began this section:
Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the
power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost? The answer is
no.
VII. Substantial Change?
Question: Is this a substantial change in the sacramental form for conferring the Order of episcopacy?
A substantial change, as we saw in section I, occurs in a sacramental form “when the meaning of the form itself is corrupted,” if the words “would have a meaning different from that intended by the Church,” if it no longer “completely and congruently” expresses the meaning intended or willed by Christ.
Now for Holy Orders, Pius XII told us exactly what elements a sacramental form ought to express — the grace of the Holy Ghost and the power of the Order being conferred.
The term governing Spirit in the new form for Episcopal consecration promulgated by Paul VI may express the first of those elements, the Holy Ghost. Indeed, the pronoun beginning the clause that follows it — “whom [quem] you gave…” — clearly indicates it is supposed to refer to the Holy Ghost.
That same expression, governing Spirit, however, does not and cannot express the other required element – the power of the Order being conferred. That notion is entirely missing from the new sacramental form, which no longer adequately signifies what it is supposed to effect — the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the Episcopal order.
So, our question was: Is this a substantial change in the sacramental form for conferring the Order of episcopacy? The answer is yes.
VIII. An Invalid Sacrament
Question: How does this substantial change of meaning in the form affect the
validity of the sacrament?
A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have seen in section I, renders a
sacrament invalid. This leads us inexorably to our conclusion:
Accordingly, an Episcopal consecration conferred with the form promulgated by Paul VI in
1968 is invalid.
We proceed to two objections.
IX. Saved by Context?
Objection: Even if the essential part of the sacrament were insufficiently
determined, it would nevertheless be adequately specified by the phrase
“grant… that he show forth to Thee a high priesthood without blame” that
occurs later in the context.
Fr. Pierre-Marie briefly raised this objection. But one could make such an argument only if:
(1) The new sacramental form contained both elements required by Pius XII (the grace of the Holy
Ghost and the power of the Order), and
(2) The form signified one of those elements equivocally rather than univocally.
One could then at least argue that the form indeed contained the element that Pius XII required and that the context adequately specified it. However:
A. Certitude… or Opinion?
No matter how convincingly formulated, such an argument could never produce moral certitude that the new sacramental form was valid, only a probable opinion that it was. For the weighty counter-argument would always be that Pius XII required that the form be univocal, period.
It is not permissible in the administration and reception of sacraments to follow a mere probable
opinion about validity. To do so is a mortal sin against religion, charity and (for the minister) against justice.
Further, this would hold all the more true regarding the administration of Holy Orders, because of
the irreparable harm — invalid Masses, absolutions and Last Rites — that would result from its invalidity. One could therefore neither confer nor receive Orders based on an opinion that the new rite of Episcopal consecration is valid, nor function as a priest based on such an opinion.
B. A Counter-Argument
And the argument from context, in any case, cuts both ways.
Other reconstructions of the Episcopal consecration prayer in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus contain a petition to God that the bishop would receive “the power… to confer orders according to your bidding.”
The Paul VI Consecration Preface at this point instead asks that he receive the power to “distribute gifts (or offices) according to Thy command.” The official English translation renders it as “assign ministries as you have decreed.”
A Mormon bishop with his own governing Spirit can assign ministries, and even Santa Claus can distribute gifts. The notion of conferring Holy Orders — the distinctive power that characterizes the fullness of the priesthood — has been eliminated from the new Preface. That the omission was deliberate is clear from the Coptic Rite form for Episcopal consecration that Dom Botte consulted to reconstruct the text of Hippolytus. It further specifies after the foregoing phrase that the bishop is to provide clergy “for the priesthood… to make new houses of prayer, and to consecrate altars.” The removal of the power to ordain from the Anglican form for Episcopal consecration was among the reasons adduced by Leo XIII for declaring Anglican orders invalid, “because among the first duties of the episcopacy is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.”
C. Not Just Equivocal, but GONE
However, one may not even make the argument from context in favor of validity, because the new
form does not even equivocally signify one of the elements Pius XII said the sacramental form must contain — the power of the Order being conferred. That element is missing, so there is nothing for the context to determine or specify. Trying to do so is a futile effort.
If I recite all the prayers and perform all the ceremonies that the Rituale Romanum prescribes for a baptism, yet — God forbid — omit the word “baptize” when I pour the water on a baby’s head, the sacrament is invalid. All the prayers in the surrounding context —no matter how much they speak about baptism, cleansing, and the life of grace — cannot render the form valid. An essential element was missing from the form, so there is nothing – not even an equivocal term — for the context somehow to render specific.
So too, here. The power of Order is gone from the form, and context cannot bring it back.
All that remains is governing Spirit, which may refer to the Holy Ghost, or one of His effects, or the Father, or knowledge, or Coptic abbot-like virtues.
X. Approved by the Pope?
Objection: Even if the essential sacramental form did not univocally signify
one of the sacramental effects (the power of the Order of the episcopacy),
approval by Pope Paul VI would nevertheless guarantee that the form was
valid. This is the last and weakest argument for validity, not only because it
assumes that authoritative declarations in the Church need no coherent
theological justification, but also because it wrongly attributes to the pope a
power he does not possess.
A. No Power to Change?
In the beginning of Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, reiterating the teaching of the Council of Trent, states:
“the Church has no power over ‘the substance of the Sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.”
As regards Holy Orders, “The Church possesses no power over the meaning of the form, because it
pertains to the substance of the sacrament instituted by Christ.” Christ Himself prescribed that for Holy Orders the Church use signs and words “capable of expressing… the power of Order.”
The new form for Episcopal consecration does not express this power, even equivocally. It therefore changes the substance of a sacrament as established by Christ. No pope would have the power to render such a form valid.
XI. Summary
WE HAVE COVERED a vast amount of material in the foregoing sections, so we will now offer the beleaguered reader a summary.
A. General Principles
(1) Each sacrament has a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental form through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect).
(2) Sacramental forms approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the same in substance, and are valid.
(3) Pius XII declared that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
(4) For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that unequivocally expresses the power of the order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
B. Application to the New Form
(1) The new form for Episcopal consecration that Paul VI promulgated does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can it confer the episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the foregoing principles.
(2) The short Paul VI form for Episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles are non sacramental prayers for the installations of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed. In sum, one may not argue that the Paul VI form is “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites” and therefore valid.
(3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Testament of Our Lord) which share some common elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface have been “reconstructed,” are of doubtful provenance, may not represent actual liturgical use, etc. There is no evidence that they were “accepted and used by the Church as such.” Thus they provide no reliable evidence to support for the validity of the Paul VI form.
(4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before and after the promulgation of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration the meaning of this expression provoked concerns about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament.
(5) Dom Bernard Botte, the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, governing Spirit connoted the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers of the Church.” Spiritus principalis means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.”
(6) This explanation is false and disingenuous. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of the Church, a dogmatic treatise, and Eastern Rite non-sacramental investiture ceremonies reveals that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses.
(7) Before the controversy over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity of the rite of consecration.
(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII. (a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect. (b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of Christ in the Episcopal office and order,” or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”
(9) For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy.
(10) A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have already demonstrated, renders a sacrament invalid.
C. Conclusion: An Invalid Sacrament
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, an Episcopal consecration conferred with the sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 and subsequent revisions are invalid.
D. The loss of the indefectible nature of the Roman Church
We have heard it said many times that the Church is indefectible as stated exactly by Christ.
The primary indefectibility of the Catholic Church is in doctrine. Faith
objectively considered, i.e., the deposit of sacred revealed doctrine, is the
foundation of the entire structure of the Catholic Church. Similarly faith
subjectively considered, i.e., the virtue of faith, is the basis of the entire
supernatural life of the soul. Hence the most important way in which the
Catholic Church cannot defect is in teaching true doctrine. Since God is
changeless, the doctrine of the Church is therefore forever changeless, and it
is a testimony of Christ's assistance to the Church that her teaching has
remained the same and consistent throughout the two thousand years of her
existence. A single contradiction or inconsistency in her ordinary or
extraordinary Magisterium would be sufficient to prove that the assistance of
God was no longer with her.
But her indefectibility is not limited to doctrine, but rather extends to all
those things which have been endowed to her by the Divine Founder. We
know that Christ endowed the Church with both structure and power. He
instituted bishops who would rule the Church in diverse localities. To this
structure He endowed the power to teach, to rule, and to sanctify the entire
human race. This power derives from the apostolic mission, i.e., the act of
being sent by Christ for the purpose of saving souls. Therefore this structure
and this mission to the souls of mankind must endure throughout all ages
unchanged. In addition, the Church is endowed with the power of orders, by
which human beings are made into supernatural instruments of divine power
to effect the supernatural sanctification of men through the sacraments, in
particular the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Therefore the Roman Church would defect if:
(a) it ever changed its doctrine;
(b) it ever altered or abandoned its hierarchical structure;
(c) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the apostolic mission of teaching, ruling and sanctifying souls;
(d) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the power of orders.
We have seen how the Church has changed and abandoned the power of orders. We have seen how the Church has changed its doctrine. We have most certainly seen how the Church has abandoned its apostolic mission of teaching, ruling and sanctifying souls. How can a Church in apostasy be indefectible?? The answer is that it is no longer indefectible by its own choice and free will.