THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH
A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood
by Michael Davies
1979 AND 1993

Appendix XI
The Form for the Ordination of a Priest

In the first edition of this book I stated that the matter and form of this Sacrament, as designated by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, remained unchanged in the new rite. This was a mistake as one small change of no theological significance was made in the form of the 1968 Ordinal, and has been retained in the 1989 edition. The compilers of the 1968 Ordinal decided to restore the form to the version found in the Leonine Sacramentair. This change was quite unnecessary, but so were all the other changes made in the traditional rite to produce that of 1968. The compilers can at least be given credit for consistency.

The two versions of the form are as follows:

The Traditional Form Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eorum Spiritum sanctitatis; ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti monos obtineant, censuramque morum exemplo suae conservationis insinuent. Grant, we beseech thee, almighty Father, to these Thy servants the dignity of the priesthood: renew the spirit of holiness within them, that they may he hold from Thee, O God, the second rank in Thy service and by the example of their behaviour afford a pattern of holy living.

The 1968 Form Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eorum Spiritum sanctitatis; acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti monos obtineant,  censuramque morum exemplo suae conservationis insinuent. Grant, we beseech thee, almighty Father, to these Thy servants the dignity of the priesthood: renew the spirit of holiness within them, may they hold from thee, O God, the second rank in Thy service and by the example of their behaviour afford a pattern of holy living.

If the two forms are examined carefully, it will be noticed that the conjunction ut from the seventh line of the Latin text does not appear in the 1968 form which has been restored to the exact wording of the Leonine Sacramentary, the background to which is explained in Appendix IX. The form from the Leonine Sacramentary is included in a collection of prayers which have been employed or accepted by the Church as valid forms for the ordination of priests in a book published in 1896, The Popes and the Ordinal by Father A.S. Barnes, which is included in the bibliography. He comments on page 146 that the form from the Leonine Sacramentary is "still found word for word in the Pontificale Romanum. " Father Barnes had failed to notice the addition of the ut just as I had failed to notice its omission.

The form from the Leonine Sacramentary is also included in a similar list of forms recognized as valid by the Holy See in A Vindication of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae" by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the province of Westminster (1898). The Bishops noted a common pattern in all the forms recognized as valid:

In each of the rites which the Catholic Church has recognized the "essential form" is contained in a "consecrating prayer" to accompany the imposition of hands, and these prayers are all cast in the same type, defining in some way or other the order to which the candidate is being promoted, and beseeching God to bestow upon him the graces necessary in his new state.

How did the ut come into the form? The answer is almost certainly through a copying error by a scribe, which was in its turn copied by other scribes and eventually became codified with the advent of the printed Pontifical. Its advent was of no theological significance, nor was its removal, but, nonetheless, the change was quite unnecessary and can quite rightly be condemned as deplorable in accordance with the observation of the English Catholic Bishops in 1898 in their condemnation of Cranmer's liturgical changes, that "in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure." It is thus hardly surprising that a small number of Catholics, distressed by the prevailing atmosphere of liturgical anarchy, and evidently ignorant of the most basic principles of sacramental theology, concluded that this change rendered the 1968 rite invalid. The blame for their confusion must be apportioned to the liturgists who caused the confusion, and not to the faithful whom they confused. Untenable as the allegation of invalidity may be, it did obtain some circulation among traditional Catholics and so a brief explanation of why this could not possibly be the case may be of some value.

The doctrine of indefectibility, which was explained in Appendix X, renders untenable any argument alleging the invalidity of the New Rite of Ordination as it was approved specifically by Pope Paul VI, and promulgated with his authority. In its Latin version, at least, it must certainly be valid. While the doctrine of indefectibility does not guarantee the validity of any vernacular sacramental rite, a careful examination of the approved English translations of the form for the ordination of a priest provides no justification for questioning their validity.

The fact that the removal of ut restores the form to the version found in the Leonine Sacramentary places allegations of invalidity into the realm of the ridiculous. If the controversial ut is necessary for validity then no Roman Rite priestly ordinations could have been valid until it was included in the form! Those who claim that the removal of ut renders the rite invalid do so on the principle that no change can ever be made to the form of a Sacrament, which means that the addition of ut rendered all ordinations invalid from the time of its inclusion until the promulgation of the 1968 Ordinal restored the original form! But as is made clear in Appendix I, Our Lord instituted His Sacraments in two ways, generically and specifically. Where He instituted a Sacrament specifically, He specified the matter and form which can never be changed, but only  the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist come into this category. In the five Sacraments which Our Lord instituted generically, He left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide the particular signs which should signify and effect the sacramental grace. In these Sacraments the Pope has the authority to make changes in the matter and form or even to change them completely. Had the Pope so wished, the entire form from the pre-1968 rite could have been abolished and a completely new one composed. In the new rite for the ordination of a bishop the form specified by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis has been completely discarded. I consider this to be deplorable, but there can be no doubt whatsoever concerning the validity of the new form. As Dr. Francis Clark is quoted as explaining in Appendix IX:

"The ultimate test of the validity of sacramental rites is not to be found in scholarship and liturgical research alone. When the sufficiency or insufficiency of a rite is in question, the decisive norm is the acceptance or rejection of it by the Catholic Church."

We have the assurance of the successor of St. Peter that all the new sacramental rites are valid. This should be sufficient to dispel any doubt felt by anyone laying serious claim to the title Catholic.

A Significant Change of Meaning?

If, for the sake of argument, we lay aside the fact that the doctrine of indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being invalid, could it be maintained that the removal of ut from the traditional form justifies the allegation of a significant change of meaning? I obtained the judgment of a number theologians and canonists competent to provide an expert opinion on the question, namely Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg, D.P., Dr. Philip Flanagan, Dr. Francis Clark, Dr. H.J. Jordan, Dr T.C.G. Glover, Father William Lawson, S.J., and also Professor Cristine Mohrmann, one of the world's greatest authorities on Christian Latin. They all reached the identical conclusion, that the omission of ut did not change the meaning of the Latin form to the slightest extent, and did not cast even the suspicion of doubt upon the validity of the Latin form. Thus even if, per impossibile, a sacramental form approved by the Sovereign Pontiff could be invalid, there would be no case for alleging invalidity in the case of the form for the ordination of a priest in the 1968 Ordinal.


BACK


www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx11.htm