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.

The Golden Calf: Mainstream Recognition

“To go to Rome is little profit, endless pain;
the master that you seek in Rome you find at home or seek in vain.”

This epigram by Sedulius has been one of my favorites for years. Sedulius speaks about a pilgrimage to Rome and how it is unnecessary, but it has taken on a larger context for those in the Independent Movement. So many of us want so desperately to be validated. Like Pinocchio, we are desperate to be a “real boy.” We seek a validation from Rome, Utrecht, or any other historic see which will never come. Thus, it is essential that we find it from the people to whom we minister.

Bishop Kallistos Ware says “Neither an Ecumenical Council, nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople or of Moscow, nor any other Mother-Church can create a new local Church. The most that they can do is to recognise such a Church. But the act of creation must be carried out in situ, locally, by the living Eucharistic cells which are called to gradually make up the body of a new local Church.” Our validation is through our building up the Body of Christ, not from any external source.

We have become accustomed to being outside the mainstream. Rome basically continued to exist alongside Utrecht until the re-establishment of the hierarchy in 1853. The Archbishops of Utrecht, while giving their allegiance were treated as outsiders. They were joined by Old Catholics who were alienated by the pronouncement of Papal Infallibility and found themselves outside the mainstream. Mathew's group then separated from Utrecht and a separation of the Union of Utrecht with the Mariavites later occurred.

Utrecht declared early on that it would not recognize Mathew’s orders or anyone from Independent Catholicism. This was repeated by Christoph Schuler in 1997 in “The Mathew affair: the failure to establish an Old Catholic Church in England in the context of Anglican Old Catholic relations between 1902 and 1925.” The rationale was that Mathew did not have the support he was promised for his consecration, but Mathew informed Utrecht of this in 1908 and was exonerated. Anglicanism declared at the Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1920 that anyone from Mathew would be re-ordained sub-conditione. This was seemly under the guise that they had "the desire expressed at previous Conferences to maintain and strengthen the friendly relations which exist between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and the ancient Church of Holland and the Old Catholic Churches, especially in Germany, Switzerland and Austria."

Similarly in Brazil, Rome declared that "the Church has not recognized, does not recognize, and will not recognize [those ordained and consecrated by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa]."1 However, this was not consistently followed with the reception of Bishop Salomao Barbosa Ferraz. ICAB was forced to change their rites of ordination and consecration because of the law prohibiting them from resembling Roman Catholicism.2 Yet, there is nothing to indicate that they are invalid wholesale or that they do not "do what the church intends."

Of course, part of the reality of these pronouncements is that no one truly recognizes each other. Since 1896, Rome has not recognized Anglican Orders. This recognition is less likely with the consecration of women bishops. Some Orthodox Churches recognized Anglican Orders, but this has also changed with the ordination of women. If and when the Union of Utrecht consecrates women, their orders will also be null in the eyes of Rome. Regarding Rome, the Orthodox do not have a unified view with some accepting their Orders and others even re-baptizing Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church considers some of the Lutheran Churches to have apostolic succession, but Rome (as of 2007) does not. Of course, Rome also states that consecrations which happened from their bishops outside of Rome will not be recognized (Milingo, Thuc, etc.) and for their part some of the bishops consecrated don’t recognize Rome (Thucites, etc.)! 

I should note that I do not think it is ill advised to to use the proper matter, form, and intent and ensure that your sacraments are acceptable in a wider ecumenical context for the benefit of the people of God. But, I understand this to be a separate issue than seeking validation. It is simply following the rescripts of larger Christianity.

I am not so naïve to think that life would not be a lot easier if we became part of a mainstream group. Ideally, there would be access to clergy, congregations, financial support, etc. that is not available in our present situation. It also would make us less likely to have schisms (although not entirely, as we have seen with Rome and the traditionalists, Canterbury and the Continuing Anglicans, Utrecht and the PNCC and Slovakia, etc.)

But I also see the reality presented. Groups joining Rome have not had the easiest time. The same is true for Western Orthodox groups joining Orthodoxy.  Both have or do experience suspicion from the inside and outside. Similarly, Utrecht would be ill advised to harm exclusivity with the much larger Anglican/Episcopal Church by recognizing Old Catholic groups in America. A desire does not translate to an easy journey or recognition.

Our movement is not easy. Every time I talk to a new candidate, I ask them “are you sure you really want to do this? It is a challenging life.” But I suppose you pick your poison. You can join with a larger denomination and lose independence but gain stability. Or you can remain and lose stability but gain independence. But, whatever we choose we have to legitimize ourselves and not look for the golden calf outside our own identities. 

1. Dr. Edward Jarvis, "God, Land, and Freedom."

2. Ibid.

Liturgical Language Matters

Recently, you may have heard, that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix declared thousands of

baptisms invalid because a priest used "we" instead of "I" in the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is the traditional formula in the West, while the East utilizes "The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

The purpose of this blog post is not about that situation in particular, but it is the cause of it--namely addressing the larger issue of adherence to liturgical rites. There has been varying responses and opinion about the Autocephalous Catholic world. These have ranged from not wishing to deviate at all from what is in the book to questioning why is this so important to the claim that jurisdictions or individuals use their own language for most sacraments. This has been a very divisive issue with accusations of adherents being too rigid to questioning "[the dependence on] the shamanistic parroting of particular words."

I freely admit that I fall into the camp that we need to adhere to what has been traditionally used and I will die on this hill. I received all my sacraments in Non-Papal Catholicism and sacramental integrity has always been part of my understanding of Autocephalous Catholicism. I would caution anyone entering our movement, especially former Roman Catholics, that we have traditionally always regarded sacramental forms as important. I was not going to address this issue at all because it has been so acrimonious, but (for me) it is of primary significance. I believe it is dangerous and problematic to deviate from language that is used by the rest of Christendom. My perspective is that 1) it impacts ecumenical relationships by calling into question Autocephalous Catholic sacraments and 2) the forms that have been used have historic, theological meanings that need to remain intact. 

Regarding the first perspective, I believe that it behooves us to use the same formularies as the rest of Christendom or to use formularies that have broad acceptance. This makes things easier for laity who come to us for sacraments to transfer their membership to other Christian bodies with the sure and certain knowledge that their baptism and confirmation will be regarded as acceptable or valid by those bodies. It is a fallacy to believe that all people who join our parishes or jurisdictions will be there from baptism to death. Following common formularies makes our relationships with other Christian bodies easier because we maintain the same liturgical language which has theological meaning.

The second perspective, perhaps the most important, is that theological language has meaning. As Christians, we study Scripture because we believe that the experiences and words there have impact on how we live our faith. We also pass down hymns, like the Phos Hilaron from the 3-4th centuries, whose words "O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and see the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee" still resonate today.

The same is true about our sacramental words. While I am an adherent of tradition, I am not so naive to believe that Our Blessed Lord celebrated a High Mass for the first Eucharist. I also will freely affirm that I HOPE that sacraments performed incorrectly still convey grace out of mercy. However, I do believe that formulas developed throughout time and took on meaning that is still impactful for us today. Opponents might say "but all tradition started somewhere," which is true, but it is self serving to believe that we can do it better than those who have come before us. 

IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE that members of the Independent Sacramental Movement and Autocephalous Catholic, Independent Catholic, Independent Anglican, (so called non-canonical) Orthodox individuals use the essential sacramental form for all of their sacraments. These are VERY VERY MINIMAL. A sentence. If you want to compose your own Mass, it's not my thing but be my guest. But keep the Dominical words. If you want to baptize a child do it with water with a common formula. Add in whatever you want, but please do not mess with the essentials. The same is true for ordination. I have watched some ordination rites with horror, not knowing who was consecrated, what was consecrated, or if someone was consecrated. The actual requirements are extremely simple. Otherwise, we call into question our sacraments and we do a disservice to those who need our sacramental ministry.

There are certainly options for those who want to compose their own rites which better fit their theology. Some Protestant groups, for example, like the Oneness Pentecostals. Or, there are non-orthodox (little o) groups which do not intend to carry on the apostolic tradition which has been passed down to them. But please, exercise caution when using the Catholic, Anglican, or Orthodox moniker in your name if you disbelieve in the importance of sacramental words. 

“Our modern theology, which in many ways has ceased to be personal, i.e. centered on the Christian experience of "person," nevertheless - and maybe as a result of this - has become utterly individualistic. It views everything in the Church - sacraments, rites, and even the Church herself - as primarily, if not exclusively, individual "means of grace," aimed at the individual, at his individual sanctification. It has lost the very categories by which to express the Church and her life as that new reality which precisely overcomes and transcends all "individualism," transforms individuals into persons, and in which me are persons only because and inasmuch as they are united to God, and, in Him, to one another and to the whole of life.” ― Alexander Schmemann