The Form of Consecration

I was asked my opinion on (and one question always popular in the Independent Catholic (Autocephalous Catholic) world) is on the form of sacramental rites. Ideally, I will do a series on this topic but I am starting with consecration (and to a lesser extent ordination) according to various theological writers. Traditionally, this is matter, form, and intent. For ordination, matter is the laying on of hands on the head. Intent is to do what the church does. 

 

In the Western Church, Pope Leo XII when discussing Anglican Ordinations stated: For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium. 1

The issue was that the Ordinal of Edward VI was invalid because the form did not discuss (for bishops) the fullness of the priesthood and, for priests, a sacrificial priesthood. The words “for the office and work of a priest" were not deemed enough to confect the sacrament.

Next, Pope Pius XII weighed in through Sacramentum Ordinis. In this encyclical, Pope Pius XII stated that the words of the preface are absolutely necessary for ordination and consecration primary to the Traditio Instrumentorum as documented by some theologians. The handing over of the instruments (chalice and paten, for example) was considered an essential part of the form by some theologians until this point. 2

Thus, according to Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII one must have the matter of laying on of hands, a form which includes the essential words of the preface and denotes ordaining to offer sacrifice, and the intent to do what the Church does.

 

The specific forms are:

In the Pre-1969 Pontifical:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.” [“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”] 3

In the Paul VI Pontifical:

“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 Orthodox do not have the same scholastic theology as the West and the defined matter, form, and intent discussions. However, generally the laying on of hands with the "prayer of the episcopacy" is considered the form among some Westerners: 4

O Master, Lord our God, who through thine all-laudable Apostle Paul hast established for us an ordinance of degrees and ranks, unto the service and divine celebration of thine august and all-spotless Mysteries upon thy holy Altar ; first, Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly, teachers : Do thou, the same Lord of all, who also hast graciously enabled this chosen person to come under the yoke of the Gospel and the dignity of a Bishop through the laying-on of hands of us, his fellow Bishops here present, strengthen him by the inspiration and power and grace of thy Holy Spirit, as thou didst strengthen thy holy Apostles and Prophets ; as thou didst anoint Kings ; as thou hast consecrated Bishops : And make his Bishopric to be blameless ; and adorning him with all dignity, present thou him holy, that he may be worthy to ask those things which are for the salvation of the people, and that thou mayest give ear unto him. For blessed is thy Name, and glorified thy Kingdom, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. 

 

The notable scholar Dom Gregory Dix, an Anglican, states that "form should be taken as the order which was conferred... the matter is the laying on of hands with prayer to the Holy Spirit." 4 As evidence, he points to the ordination prayer of Saint Hippolytus as well as the rite of St. Sarapion. Dix states that "nowhere is there mention of sacrifice [in early sacramentaries] as the essential 'grace and power' of the sacrament." 4 Dix further states that among Easterners the laying on of hands with the prayer to the Holy Spirit is the matter and form, which are not described as such.

So, what does all of this mean? For me, it is:

1. The "matter" of hands touching the head must always be present.

2. Dix has documented exhaustively (as have other RC authors when speaking of the new rite of consecration) that the form has varied throughout the centuries and by church. However, it is in the Independent Catholics' best interest to use an accepted form to ensure proper transmission of the sacrament. If the Western Rite is used, I personally follow the Pius XII form.

3. The intent is always to do what the Church does.

 

------------

1. Apostolicae Curae, 1896

2. A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Otten, 1918

3. Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

4. The Question of Anglican Orders, Dix, 1956.

Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Autocephalous Catholic Apostolic Lineage

Ohiychuk and Prazsky

In 988, the Baptism of Kyvian Rus occurred by Saint Vladimir of Kyiv (secularly Vladimir the Great). Ukraine continued under the Metropolitante of Kyiv under the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1448. At this time, the Council of Moscow's Bishops appointed a Metropolitan of Kyiv without the Ecumenical Patriarch's blessing. Further changes to the territory came in 1596, when there was a split among Orthodox believers. Part remained Orthodox and the remaining believers joined the Roman Catholic Church. 

In 1685, the formal absorption of Kyiv as a religious entity into the Russian Orthodox Church when Patriarch Dionysius IV issued a letter granting control over Kyiv to Moscow (apparently through simony). This status of subjugation continued until Ukrainian independence in as the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917. At this time, the Ukrainian Autocephalus Orthodox Church was proclaimed. In 1921, an All-Ukrainian Sobor was called in Ukraine declaring independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky was chosen as the head of the church Upon election, he used Ukrainian in the liturgy instead of Church Slavonic. Because of this, was was deposed by Russian bishops who also disagreed with his promotion of Ukraine and liberal views. 

 On October 23, 1921 Lypkivsky was consecrated as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. No bishop would participate in his consecration so, in the Alexandrian model, he was consecrated by the laying on of hands of priests present. By 1924 the church had grown to 30 bishops and 1,500 priests and deacons in 1,100 parishes. However, it was not recognized because of the unorthodox consecration received by Lypkivsky and other bishops. By 1927, Lypkivsky was under house arrest by the Soviets until his execution on November 27, 1937 because of his Ukrainian nationalism.

Meanwhile, on November 13, 1924 the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios VII granted autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church and stated that the subjugation of the Kyvian Metropolia to Moscow was contrary to canon law. However, he did not recognize the established Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church despite appeals to do so. The church's situation changed when the Nazis invaded and took control of parts of Ukrainian territory. In 1942, in light of the 1924 Tomos, Bishop Polycarp (Sikorsky) of Lutsk (formerly of the Church of Poland) consecrated the first Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox bishops in apostolic succession. Around a dozen bishops were consecrated by 1944. As the Soviets advanced, however, those who did not escape to the West perished. 

Metropolitan Polycarp died in France in 1953 and Metropolitan Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) who was ordained by Polycarp made his way to Germany then to Canada and finally to the United States, where he settled at Bound Brook, NJ. Another bishop, Archbishop Hryhoriy Ohiychuk, formerly Archbishop of Zhytomyr fled to the United States. 

This begins the introduction of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into Autocephalous Catholicism. Archbishop Hryhoriy consecrated William Andrew Prazsky in May 1969. It has been alleged that Prazsky was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood by Walter Propheta, although Gary Ward's book lists him as a member of the Liberal Catholic Church (which is unproven; see here: https://sites.google.com/site/gnostickos/bbishopsprazsky2).

Prazsky went on to consecrate Bishop Andre Penachio who consecrated Bishop Joseph Fradale who, in 1983, consecrated sub-conditione Bishop Peter Paul Brennan (from whom many people descend). Prazsky also consecrated Alexis Nizza who, in 1999, consecrated Metropolitans Stephen Petrovitch and Michael Champion. They went on to form the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Sobornopravna). They consecrated Bishop Oleh Kulyk (Patriarch Moses) who went on to declare himself Patriarch of Kyiv and consecrated or received numerous individuals (see here: http://www.soborna.org/). 

The lineage of the UAOC entered so-called Old Calendarist Churches as well. Metropolitan Mstyslav, later elected Patriarch in 1991 upon Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union and his successor, Patriarch Dymytry (Yarema), was consecrator of Bishop Raphael (Leonid Motovilov) of Krasnoyarsk in 1996. The Russian True Orthodox Church was part of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church but left their jurisdiction. Bishop Raphael joined this group but left in 1999 to form the True Orthodox Church in Russia, and became Metropolitan Raphael and leader of this jurisdiction (see: http://ipckatakomb.ru/pages/577/). 

The True Orthodox Church of Russia later joined up with the Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece under Metropolitan Angelos of Avlona. Also in the union was the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The Metropolia was a member of the Holy Synod of Milan, itself under the Patriarchiate of Kyiv from 1995-1996. 

Unfortunately, because of this history the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been condemned by other groups because of its tumultuous history. However, this is to be expected of a country which has been invaded numerous times and subject to frequent destabilization. As mentioned, Metropolitan Mstyslav was elected Patriarch in 1991 and in 1992 there was a Unification Synod between the UAOC and part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Part of the UAOC did not accept the unficiation and continued under Patriarch Dymytry (mentioned above) while the unified group continued under Patriarch Volodymyr (Romaniuk) and later Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko). This group, in 2018, joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was re-named the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church joined the OCU as well, leading to stabilization in the country of Ukrainian groups independent of Russia. 

Please note: this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. It has been simplified and reduced for space and time.

Conditional Consecrations

One of the challenges of Autocephalous Catholicism is deciding what to do about conditional consecrations. They are ubiquitous in our movement and just about everyone has been consecrated multiple times. This was exacerbated by the 1970s-1990s when it seemed like there would be parties of bishops who would get together and conditionally consecrate each other.

But what does this mean for us? Well, according to traditional theology ordination places an indelible mark on the soul of the ordinand and can only be performed once. To replicate the sacrament is sacrilegious. To avoid this, bishops will be conditionally consecrated licitly only to to fulfill any lacking of validity of the previous consecration. This was also done when when one was consecrated outside a church or tradition. In Orthodoxy this could be common when a bishop joins a new synod (and is received by cherothesia). 

However, there is still the issue of conditional consecrations unique to our movement--to accumulate lines of succession from different people. Scripturally, there is argument against this practice. 1 Corinthians 1:13 points to our not being baptized in the name of Paul. It follows, then, that sacraments are not passing on the lineage of any one holder but are passing on the transmission of lineage commissioned by Christ and in His name. Ignoring any ideas about apostolic tradition here, it should be sufficient that we were ordained (and consecrated) in the lineage of Christ.

Still, however, there have always been "bishop lists" (as well documented in the book by that name from Georgias Press) and unfolding the bishops who preceded someone is important to show continuity.1 The main question for us is "does anything happen with the successive consecrations if the previous one was valid?" This is important for successors to the lineage of Carfora, of which I count myself. Carfora was consecrated (allegedly) by Renee Vilatte in 1907. He was absolutely consecrated by Gulotti in 1912. So do his heirs hold succession through Vilatte/Gulotti or Mathew? The same is true of Archbishop Hubert Rogers (who was previously consecrated by the African Orthodox Church). Is his succession that of Bishop Robertson of the African Orthodox Church or Carfora? There are numerous cases like this in our history.

The short answer for me is that I don't know. If there is a scintilla of doubt it is reasonable to conditionally consecrate. The same is true for bishops consecrated outside of their current synod, as mentioned before among the Orthodox. But does this negate the previous consecration? Especially if the doubt is primarily unfounded? Should the second consecration be a footnote to the first or counted as equal? These are all difficult questions.

Bishop Rob Jones in his book "Independent Sacramental Bishops" takes on this question of conditional consecrations.2 In his work, he discusses the efficacy of spiritual lineages and how they impact the movement as a whole. This may be outside the traditional understanding of apostolic succession, but it is a thought which provides some innovative reasoning for our movement. While his concepts incorporate esoteric thought, with which I am unfamiliar, they do point to the need to fully examine conditional consecrations and their impact on our movement outside of traditional theological discourse. Jones is quoted on the issue below:

"And yet I am convinced there is more going on. I am convinced that when a bishop is ordained and consecrated, s/he receives not only the fullness of apostolic lines from each of the ordaining bishops; but also receives any episcopal lineages these ordaining bishops also hold, including any non-apostolic esoteric lineages."

Abba Seraphim also recently published "Succesio Apostolica" which partially addresses conditional consecrations.3 In it, Mar Georgius (his predecessor) is quoted about conditional consecrations:

"The effect of a conditional consecration by way of additional commission, or if you prefer the term....‘fortified consecration’, is undoubtedly precisely the same as the effect of the participation of a co-consecrator at a consecration ‘ab initio’. Therefore, the question of validity or invalidity does not arise. Just as a co-consecrator passes on his own line, in addition to the line conveyed by the Consecrator, does in like matter the additional line pass to the Consecrand. If the question of difference of time is raised, it should be realised that with God there is no time, but only the eternal present.Furthermore, even where many co-consecrators our acting at a ceremony, there are slight differences of timing in the uttering of the words which constitute the ‘form’ of the Sacrament of Order. Therefore, as it is clearly understood that the minute the Consecrator himself has imposed hands and uttered the words prescribed, the Consecrand must be accounted a Bishop,and nothing can be added to that fact, nevertheless the co-operation of the co-consecrators, where the Orders of the consecrator are valid, is not deemed to be an empty form, but is definitely held to pass on the lines of succession in which the co-consecrators stand, even though the words emerge (as they invariably do) a few seconds after those of the Consecrator. In principle, therefore, the same argument must be applied to our conditional consecrations.”

There are authors who disagree that co-consecrators pass on their succession but merely as witnesses or provide approbation for the consecration. Whether one agrees or not with the assessment of Mar Georgius it is important because it contributes to the larger question of how to handle conditional consecrations. Abba Seraphim is to be commended to contributing to the discussion.

Regardless of where you fall on this issue, and as I mentioned I still have a lot of questions myself, it is something we will continue to encounter as a movement. We should be prepared to address it intelligently and with theological reasoning.

1: https://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Lists-Succession-Ecclesiastical-Dissertations/dp/1593331940 
2: https://www.amazon.com/Independent-Sacramental-Bishops-Angus-Jones/dp/1933993839
3: https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/abba-seraphim/successio-apostolica/hardcover/product-66y76y.html

A Pedigree Does Not A Bishop Make...

Often times you will here in the ISM that "I have xyz orders, which makes me an xyz bishop/priest/deacon." Let me assure you, dear reader, that having orders through a particular source does not make one entitled to that tradition. Apostolic Succession (or tradition depending on your outlook) is not something that one owns like the pedigree of a horse. It is a tie to the universal priesthood of Christ Jesus. That succession is as equal in a Roman Catholic ordination as it is in an Orthodox ordination as it is in an Old Catholic ordination... you get the drift.

Some interesting precedents have pointed to going outside one's tradition for receiving the Apostolic Succession. There is a well-known Sedevacantist group that initially received orders from an Old Catholic Bishop. Receiving these orders did not make the recipients Old Catholics (and they made all sorts of abjurations and oaths to prove it) but it connected them with the timeless succession from the apostles. So, too, with the Charismatic Episcopal Church, which received orders from the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. They did not necessarily care about the venerable history of (St.) Carlos Duarte Costa--they only wanted to share in the historic succession.

This does not mean that it is anathema to want to receive a certain lineage because of a link to a tradition or an idealization towards the founder. Like it or not humans are a concrete people who value ties to those who are important to their faith--we keep relics, prayer cards, etc., so it goes to reason that lineage should be no different. However, receiving that lineage is not the be all and end all of claiming the tradition. That takes years of careful theological and historical study, but also a sincere adherence to the faiths and beliefs of that group or background.

So, receiving apostolic succession through an unlikely source does not genetically curse your succession and that of your successor's successors. In that same manner, though, receiving succession through someone like Archbishop Thuc doesn't make you a Traditionalist Catholic. If you doubt this, ask Sinead O'Connor.