Bp. Williamson's Consecration
#31
(07-03-2010, 08:52 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: This, as I recall, was discussed by Hürth, whom I cited in the bibliography.

I don't know what Hurt said, but the reconciliation is:

Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Reply
#32
Maybe Fr. Cekada can comment on this question that I have as a result of reading this thread. 

Can a bishop of one rite consecrate a priest using the form of another rite? 

For example, Could a Latin rite bishop consecrate a Latin rite priest using the Byzantine form of consecration? 

My guess is that it would be valid but illicit. 



Reply
#33
(07-03-2010, 10:34 AM)Gerard Wrote: Maybe Fr. Cekada can comment on this question that I have as a result of reading this thread. 

Can a bishop of one rite consecrate a priest using the form of another rite? 

For example, Could a Latin rite bishop consecrate a Latin rite priest using the Byzantine form of consecration? 

My guess is that it would be valid but illicit. 

It would be valid.

There is no substantial difference between the essential form (formula) for a sacrament in the Latin rite and for a sacrament in an Eastern rite, only an accidental difference. (The meaning is the same.) So an Eastern rite form would confer a sacrament even when employed by a Latin rite priest or bishop.

Ditto for the matter. E.g. unleavened (Latin) or leavened (Eastern rite) bread -- either is valid matter for the Eucharist, and the difference is accidental, not substantial.

This was the underlying issue in the one-handed ordination canard. Only a substantial change in the matter for a sacrament invalidates it.

But the use of one hand or two to confer a major order is merely an  accidental difference, not a substantial one -- because (among other things) only one hand is necessary and sufficient to confer major orders in the Eastern rites.
Reply
#34
(07-03-2010, 08:52 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: To insist otherwise would be sheer theological stupidity.

Or, more than likely, malice.
Reply
#35
(07-03-2010, 09:53 AM)glgas Wrote:
(07-03-2010, 08:52 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: This, as I recall, was discussed by Hürth, whom I cited in the bibliography.

I don't know what Hurt said, but the reconciliation is:

Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Even the pope does not have the authority to change the substance of the sacraments.
Reply
#36
(07-03-2010, 06:07 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(07-03-2010, 08:52 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: To insist otherwise would be sheer theological stupidity.

Or, more than likely, malice.

Or, most likely, just simple ignorance.

I would say that assuming the worst when the benefit of doubt allows us to assume the best is the better course of action, I think.
Reply
#37
(07-03-2010, 07:08 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Even the pope does not have the authority to change the substance of the sacraments.

Pius XII just did it related to the matter of ordination against the council of Florence.

The hard and self evident fact is that only unchangeable things are unchangeable. What the sacra,ment represent is unchangeable, outside visible representations  are changeable and sometimes changed.
Reply
#38
(07-04-2010, 07:50 AM)glgas Wrote:
(07-03-2010, 07:08 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Even the pope does not have the authority to change the substance of the sacraments.

Pius XII just did it related to the matter of ordination against the council of Florence.

No, the Council of Florence was just wrong in regard to its non-infallible statement about what the matter of Order was. It wouldn't be the first time a pope our council was wrong in a non-infallible doctrinal decision.
Reply
#39
(07-04-2010, 12:51 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: No, the Council of Florence was just wrong in regard to its non-infallible statement about what the matter of Order was. It wouldn't be the first time a pope our council was wrong in a non-infallible doctrinal decision.

Naturally it is impossible to make infallible statement about changing world related things. But the Council of Florence called in and approved by Pope Eugenius IV has the same value as Pope XII statement.
Reply
#40
To correct some imprecise terminology floating around the thread:

Form -- The vocal symbols (words) by which the Sacrament is conferred.

Matter -- The material symbols (material, actions) by which the Sacrament is conferred.
        Remote Matter -- The sensible thing required
        Proximate Matter -- The use of the remote matter

Each sacrament has a particular matter and form.

The form of Baptism is the words "N., I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
The remote matter of Baptism is liquid natural water (liceity, not validity, requires for solemn baptism, Baptismal Water)
The proximate matter of Baptism is the exterior washing of the body with the water.
The certain validity of the sacrament requires the use of remote matter while the form is said.

For Holy Orders, there are three parts which are actually part of the Sacrament: the Diaconate, Presbyterate, and Episcopacy. The other orders are commonly understood to be sacramentals. Before the Second Vatican Council there was some doubt as to whether the Episcopate was a separate Sacramental Order, or whether it was the completion of the priesthood, and not, therefore a separate order. The common teaching now is that while Sacerdos refers to both bishops and priests, the episcopacy is actually a separate degree of Order and is part of the Sacrament of Orders, unlike the minor orders, which are not part of the Sacrament itself.

Each of the various sacramental orders in Order has a separate form, but the laying on of hands is the matter.

Unlike Baptism where the form and matter are employed at the same time, in each of the Orders, the form and matter are separated.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)