Untrained
and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit
By
the Rev. Anthony Cekada
(The
problem of untrained clergy in the traditionalist movement)
Note
by the Most Reverend Markus Ramolla: In
the light of repeated priestly ordinations confered particularilly
in 2012/13 on candidates which had no priestly Tridentine training
whatsoever, or who had incompleted training or do not have the
necessary qualities for the Sacred Priesthood we would like to post
on our Blog Father Cekada's article: Untrained and Un-Tridentine:
Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit in order that our readers and
faithful can be acquainted with the Catholic principles concerning
formation and ordination to the Holy Priesthood. Despite our own
differences which we have and had with Father Cekada, particularly
how our own situation was handled back in 2009, or how the school
situation at St. Gertrude the Great Roman Catholic Church was handled
and despite our reservation of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, we agree
wholeheartedly with the principles of Sacred Theology which Father
Cekada shows in this article.
The
following incidents actually took place in different traditional
Catholic chapels in the U.S.:
• A married man in
priestly vestments stands at an altar attempting to offer the
Tridentine Mass, but it is obvious that he has no clue about how to
go about it. The server (a devout layman) stands up, stations himself
next to “Father,” and for the rest of the Mass tells the confused
celebrant what to do next.
• “Father” is
conducting Holy Week services at a traditionalist chapel in
Louisiana. He buys some boudin, the spicy Cajun blood sausage,
and casually mentions that he just ate most of it in the grocery
store’s parking lot. The day is Good Friday.
• “Father”
has forgotten to consecrate an extra host for Benediction after Mass.
He blesses the congregation with an empty monstrance, and tells the
server, “I hope no one will notice.”
* *
*
In
each of these incidents (and many others like them) we encounter a
strange and disturbing phenomenon: the would-be traditionalist priest
who has been ordained without proper seminary training.
In some cases, he
may have been trained as a religious brother, or perhaps even passed
a year or two in a seminary. But he has never completed the required
ecclesiastical studies (Latin, philosophy, theology). A gullible or
careless old bishop came along and ordained him in the traditional
rite, and he begins offering Mass and hearing confessions in a
traditionalist chapel.
Or worse, he may
lack even these
negligible credentials. He is a chicken farmer, male nurse, estate
liquidator, vestment-maker, short-order cook, doctor, ex-convict,
schoolteacher, or thrice-expelled seminarian, sometimes with an
incongruous marital background (married, divorced, annulled). One day
he shows up somewhere to offer the Tridentine Mass, claiming to be a
Catholic priest or bishop. He has been ordained or consecrated, it
turns out, by an equally untrained “bishop” with connections to
the Old Catholics,[1]
the Brazilian Apostolic Church,[2]
Palmar de Troya,[3]
or others.
Allowing such men to
function as priests in our midst is, to say the least, contradictory.
As traditionalists we esteem the Tridentine Mass. But a Tridentine
Mass should be celebrated by a “Tridentine” priest — one
trained according to the norms of the Council of Trent.
Those of us old
enough to remember how the Tridentine system worked and what
standards it set find the notion of an untrained priest not only
bizarre, but also positively horrifying.
In the early 1960s
at age fourteen, I began ecclesiastical life by entering a minor
seminary with 125 other boys. We all knew exactly what the Church
required before we could be ordained: Six years of minor seminary
(with Latin every year) and six more years of major seminary (two of
philosophy, four of theology). Only if we persevered for twelve years
— having been tested and judged every step of the way — could we
hope to be ordained. There were no exceptions, because (as even boys
knew then) the priesthood was the most important job in the world,
and whether a soul would go to heaven or hell would one day depend on
you.
The laity sometimes
tolerate the untrained and un-Tridentine “traditionalist” priest
because they do not understand the exacting requirements for priestly
ordination. In other cases, laymen may feel that “valid sacraments”
are all that count, and that the rest is legalistic window dressing —
so why be fussy?
Experience, though,
teaches that an unschooled, unformed priest is a time-bomb waiting to
go off. When the explosion comes, scandal follows and souls are
driven away from the traditional Mass.
And when such a
priest or bishop emerges from an ecclesiastical underworld where no
one had proper training, is it really safe to assume that his
ordination or consecration was valid anyway?
But in any case,
valid or not, such a person’s presence at the altar and in the
confessional degrades the priesthood and endangers souls.
Since I teach a
general canon law course and a sacramental law course at an
institution that forms young men to become traditional Catholic
priests, Most Holy Trinity Seminary, I resolved to write an article
explaining some of the principles that church law, moral theology and
papal pronouncements lay down about the reception and conferral of
Holy Orders.
Here I will cover
the following topics:
(1) Canonical
fitness for ordination — i.e., the criteria canon law lays down for
determining whether or not a candidate is suitable for the
priesthood.
(2) The
sinfulness of conferring Holy Orders on an unfit candidate.
(3) Whether
orders conferred by bishops who themselves were canonically unfit for
the priestly state may be presumed valid.
(4) Whether an
unfit candidate who has received orders may exercise them.
(5) Some
objections.
As we shall see, the
Church’s norms are exacting, and those who do not meet them are
unfit to receive, exercise or confer the sacrament of Holy Orders.
The ministrations of such clergy, therefore, should be avoided by
traditional Catholics everywhere.
I also hope that
this discussion will help the lay reader better understand and
appreciate the traditional seminary formation received by Catholic
priests.
I.
Canonical Fitness:
The
Church’s Requirements
Merely
wanting to be a priest, even for a worthy motive, does not mean you
have a true vocation. Moral theologians and canonists teach that a
candidate must also possess canonical fitness (idoneitas
canonica).
Canon 974.1 sets
forth the two general criteria that are the key to ascertaining a
candidate’s canonical fitness:
(1) “Moral
conduct that conforms to the order to be received” — virtue, in
other words.
(2) “The
required knowledge.”[4]
If a candidate does
not possess these qualities, he is canonically unfit, he has no
business being a priest, and his ordination would be gravely illicit.
Ordinarily, where
and how is this judgment made? The decrees of the Council of Trent
prescribed that “those who are to be ordained must live in a
seminary, and there be formed in ecclesiastical discipline, and
receive Holy Orders after having been properly judged.”[5]
Canon 972.1 states
the general rule: “All candidates for sacred orders … are obliged
to live a seminary at least throughout the entire course of their
theological studies.”[6]
The seminary program
insures that ordinands are “properly judged” (rite probati)
on basis of their conduct and their knowledge, and therefore
canonically fit for ordination.
Virtue and knowledge
can only be acquired, tested and judged over a long period of time.
The following is an overview of the spiritual and intellectual
formation that the seminary is supposed to provide.
A.
Virtuous Conduct
What type of “moral
conduct” (mores congruentes)
is required in a candidate for Holy Orders?
The canonist
Regatillo explains that this means the dotes
gratiae
— the supernatural virtues, especially “piety, chastity,
absence of avarice, zeal for souls, the spirit of discipline,
and obedience.”[7]
It requires years,
as the prudent practice of the Church has shown, to instill these
virtues in a candidate and to verify that they have become part of
his character.
In his encyclical on
the Catholic priesthood and seminary training, Pope Pius XI
underscores the care that must be exercised in making this judgment:
“Listen to the
warning of Chrysostom whom We have quoted: ‘Impose not hands after
the first trial, nor after the second, nor yet the third, but only
after a frequent and careful observation and searching
examination.’ This
warning applies in an especial way to the question of the
uprightness of life in candidates for the priesthood. ‘It is not
enough,’ says the holy Bishop and Doctor St. Alphonsus de
Liguori, ‘that the Bishop know nothing evil of the ordinand; he
must have positive
evidence of his uprightness’.”[8]
The principal
elements in a seminary program that insure this are:
(1) The
Seminary Rule. This organizes the seminarian’s daily life and
forms him in virtues that befit a cleric. It regulates general
conduct, spiritual practices, appropriate dress, times of silence,
household obligations, acceptable recreation, required permissions,
etc.
(2) The
Daily Schedule. Life at the seminary follows a fairly detailed
daily schedule with regularly recurring common spiritual activities
(meditation, spiritual reading, Rosary, Divine Office).
Here is our schedule
at Most Holy Trinity Seminary:
5:40
Rise
6:20
Meditation
6:50
Angelus
7:00
Mass
7:50
Breakfast
8:30
Class or Study
12:30
Main Meal
1:00
Recreation
1:45
Class or Study
3:15
Snack
3:30
Sports or Exercise
4:30
Clean up
5:00
Vespers, Chanted
5:45
Spiritual Reading or Conference
6:00
Light Supper
6:30
Recreation
8:00
Rosary, Grand Silence
9:00
Retire to rooms
11:00
Lights out
Such a schedule
instills in the seminarian the habit of regularity in the spiritual
life which he is supposed to carry with him after ordination.
Following it faithfully for many years, moreover, indicates the
self-discipline and seriousness of purpose that are indispensable to
a devout and zealous priestly life.
(3) Regular
Spiritual Direction. Each seminarian
is required to have a spiritual director — a priest other than the
seminary Rector who is supposed to guide him in his personal
spiritual life. The seminarian meets regularly with his director to
discuss his spiritual progress and shortcomings.
(4)
Observation and Correction by
Superiors. Seminary superiors must
know their seminarians well and, when necessary, correct them for
various faults or shortcomings. This is done either privately or
publicly, at the discretion of the superior. The seminarian learns to
accept such corrections gracefully as a means to virtue.
(5) Faculty
Evaluation Prior to Orders. Priests
on the seminary faculty are supposed to discuss and (when necessary)
vote upon the fitness of a candidate before he is promoted to Holy
Orders.
B. The Required
Knowledge
Pope after pope
teaches that intellectual ability and knowledge are indispensable to
the priest.
In his motu proprio
prescribing the Anti-Modernist Oath, Pope St. Pius X warns that
“cultivation of the mind” and “expertise in doctrine” are all
the more necessary in candidates for Holy Orders who will have to
combat the insidious errors of modernists.[9]
Pius XI warns:
“Anyone who undertakes the sacred ministry without training or
competence should tremble
for his own fate, for the Lord will not suffer his ignorance to go
unpunished…
If ever there was an obligation on priests to be men of learning, it
is even more pressing at the present time.”[10]
Pius XII further
stresses that the priest will not be able to combat modern errors
effectively “unless he has thoroughly learned the solid
fundamentals of Catholic theology and philosophy… In conformity
with Our Apostolic duty, We have insisted earnestly on the importance
of a high standard of intellectual training for clerics.”[11]
The Code of Canon
Law lays down the general requirements for the candidate’s
intellectual training.
First, it assumes
that he will have spent about six years in a minor seminary (high
school, junior college), where he will have already learned Latin
well, along with the other subjects that an educated man in his
country is expected to study.[12]
Then for the major
seminary curriculum that precedes priestly ordination, the Code
prescribes two years study of philosophy (and related disciplines)
and at least four years study of theology.[13]
The following points
should be noted:
(1) Knowledge of
Latin. A priest must know Latin not only because of the Mass, but
also because Latin is the language of the Breviary and of Catholic
theology.
A priest ignorant of
Latin will not understand the Breviary (Divine Office), which forms
the principal portion of his daily prayer. It will soon become a
mechanical exercise for him, rather than a joy; he will be deaf and
uncomprehending to the voice of the Church’s official prayer.
Ignorance of Latin
virtually guarantees ignorance of theology, or at best that a
priest’s understanding of it will never be more than superficial.
All the major treatises on dogma, moral theology and canon law are
available only in Latin. Ignorance of Latin cuts you off from this
vast and profound body of learning.
Here is Pius XI on
the issue: “All clerics without exception should have acquired a
thorough knowledge and mastery of the language.… How can anyone
hope to detect and refute these [theological] errors unless he grasps
properly the meaning of the dogmas of faith and the force of the
words in which they are solemnly defined, in a word, unless he knows
the language which the Church uses.”[14]
And Pius XII: “Let
there be no priest who cannot read and speak Latin with ease and
facility… The sacred minister who is ignorant of it must be
regarded as deplorably lacking in mental refinement.”[15]
And here let us
stress what the popes and canon law actually require: Not merely that
a seminarian can pronounce Latin, has “had” some Latin, or
has “passed” a Latin course or two, but that the seminarian
actually knows and understands Latin.
To accomplish this
requires a good teacher, a dedicated student, and lots of endless
drilling.
At Most Holy Trinity
Seminary, Latin is taught at three levels: elementary (fundamental
grammar and syntax), intermediate (prose composition) and advanced
(prose composition, translations of reading from the Church Fathers).
The seminarian does drills and translations in an hour-and-a-half
class, five afternoons a week until the priest-instructor is
satisfied that the student understands Latin grammar and syntax
inside out. Sometimes this takes several years.
The seminarian is
then given a test in which he must translate Latin theological texts.
If the instructor and the Rector are satisfied and convinced that the
seminarian understands the language sufficiently, he is excused from
the class. If they are unpersuaded, the seminarian goes back to class
until he learns enough to convince them of his knowledge.
In addition I teach
a course on the Latin Psalms of the Breviary. These form the major
portion of the Divine Office, which clerics must pray every day after
Subdiaconate.
The seminarians must
translate the Psalms line by line in class, take daily quizzes on the
special vocabulary of the Psalms and learn the meaning of the
approximately 240 Latin passages in the Psalter that are particularly
difficult to understand.
(I hope to make some
of this material available on the Internet at
www.traditionalmass.org.)
(2)
Philosophy. This discipline seeks to impart a systematic and
intimate knowledge of the causes and reasons of things in the
universe. It considers the world, the cause of
the world, and man himself (his nature, origin, operations, moral
end, and scientific activities).
An understanding of
scholastic (“Thomistic”) philosophy is a necessary prerequisite
to understanding Catholic theology.
The main courses in
this discipline are Logic, Cosmology, Natural Psychology,
Metaphysics, Ethics, Theodicy, History of Philosophy and at Most Holy
Trinity require more that 400 class hours over three years.
(3) Theology.
This is “the science of God and Divine
things” that systematically examines supernatural revelation in the
light of Christian faith.
Below is a list of
theology courses taught at Most Holy Trinity Seminary. They are
typical of requirements in the standard pre-Vatican II
theology program, though some material may have been divided
differently.
The first two
headings listed, Dogmatic and Moral Theology, comprise the two major
courses during these four years. The first is a systematic study of
the faith; the second, a thorough examination of the principles and
practice of morality, and therefore especially important for hearing
confessions.
• Dogmatic
Theology. Revelation. The Church. The One God. The Trinity. God
the Creator. Grace. The Incarnate Word. Sacraments. Last Things. (680
hrs.)
• Moral
Theology. General Principles. Theological Virtues. Cardinal
Virtues. Ascetical and Mystical Theology. (420 hrs.)
• Sacred
Scripture. Introduction. (75 hrs.) Reading and Commentary on
Texts. (Variable hours.)
• Canon
Law. General Introduction. Sacramental Law (180 hrs.)
• Liturgy.
History/General Introduction. Rites in Particular. Modern Age and
the New Mass. Rubrics of the Mass. Breviary Psalter Translation. (240
hrs.)
• Church
History. Primitive Church. Middle Ages.
Modern Age. (210 hrs.)
• Practica.
Homiletics. Gregorian Chant. Practice of Mass. Pastoral Theology.
(4) Course
Preparation, Exams. In order to teach a subject effectively the
professor must prepare extensive notes for himself and the students.
The first time a professor teaches a major course, he needs about 3-4
hours to prepare notes for each hour of actual class time.
The seminarian uses
these notes to study for exams, which at Most Holy Trinity he takes
three times a year. Needless to say, you must pass exams for all
major courses.
(5) Orders
and Studies. The Code of Canon Law also prescribes the point a
seminarian must have achieved in his education before his
promotion to each major order. These rules applied equally to
diocesan and religious order priests:
• Tonsure,
Minor Orders. Not before beginning theology.
• Subdiaconate.
Not before near the end of third year of theology.
• Diaconate.
Not before beginning of fourth year of theology.
• Priesthood.
Not
before middle of fourth year of theology.[16]
This was the general
law of the Church. Dispensations would sometimes allow earlier
conferral of subdiaconate and diaconate.
II.
Ordaining the Unfit:
Illicit
and Mortally Sinful
Such
is the spiritual and academic formation the Church prescribes to
insure that candidates for the priesthood are properly judged (rite
probati) as to whether they possess the “moral conduct” and
the “required knowledge” which, taken together, constitute
“canonical fitness” (idoneitas canonica) for Holy Orders.
What if a candidate
lacks the required formation, and is therefore canonically unfit?
Church law is clear:
First, to ordain him
would be illicit. Canon 974 lays down moral conduct and required
knowledge as conditions for “licit” ordination, and we have
examined in some detail what comprises these conditions.
Second,
canon 973 prohibits a bishop under pain of mortal sin from
ordaining a canonically unfit candidate.
“The bishop shall
not confer sacred orders on anyone unless he has positive proof,
amounting to moral certainty, of the candidate’s canonical fitness;
otherwise he [the bishop] not only sins
most gravely,
but also exposes himself to the danger of sharing in the guilt of
another.”[17]
Two things about
this are particularly noteworthy:
• The
canon applies not only to the conferral of the priesthood, but also
even to the lower sacred orders of diaconate and subdiaconate.
• The
canon underlines the serious nature of this prohibition by stating
that if the bishop violates it, he “sins most gravely.” This is
one of the few passages in the Code that specifically mentions mortal
sin as a consequence of violating a canon.
The canonist
Regatillo explains that this is a sin “against the public good,
which is harmed exceedingly by unworthy ministers.”[18]
And finally, in the
certificate he issues after the ordination the ordaining bishop must
swear that the candidate he has promoted has been duly examined
beforehand and “found fit” — idoneum
repertum.[19]
III.
Validity of Holy Orders
From
Unfit Bishops
I
have amply demonstrated elsewhere that canonists, moral theologians
and various church decrees conceded a general presumption of validity
to ordinations and episcopal consecrations conferred by Catholic
bishops, Orthodox bishops and schismatic Old Catholic bishops in
certain countries.[20].
These authorities
take it for granted that all such bishops follow the rites prescribed
in their respective liturgical books, and thus employ the essential
matter (imposition of hands) and form (formula proper to each order)
required for the validity of an ordination.
But how far does
this presumption extend? Does it extend even to orders conferred by
an underworld traditionalist “bishop” of the type mentioned at
the beginning of this article — someone canonically unfit for the
priesthood himself, lacking a proper ecclesiastical education,
summarily ordained a priest, and raised to the episcopate, perhaps by
a bishop equally ignorant and canonically unfit?
I doubt that any
Roman canonist explored such an issue in a pre-Vatican II canon law
manual — Holy Orders conferred by, say, a chicken farmer-bishop
untrained in Latin and theology.
The principle to be
applied, nevertheless, is clear enough: Unless someone has received
proper training, no presumption of validity is accorded to the
sacraments he confers, because he may not know enough to confer them
validly.
This is easily
deduced from the following cases.
A.
Baptism by a Layman
We all learned in
catechism class that while the priest is the ordinary minister of
baptism, in an emergency even a layman can validly administer the
sacrament.
The moral theologian
Merkelbach, however, states that that the validity of such a baptism
is often suspect in practice, and recommends that the priest confer
the sacrament again conditionally, unless witnesses can confirm what
took place, or unless someone “completely serious… trustworthy,
circumspect, instructed in the rite of baptizing, asserts that he
baptized the child properly.”[21]
So while a baptism
conferred by the ordinary
minister always enjoys a presumption of validity, no
such presumption is conceded when it is conferred by another person
who has not
been properly trained. Instead, someone who knows what is required
(in this case, the pastor) must then conduct an inquiry in order to
ascertain whether the sacrament was conferred validly.[22]
Here, the chicken
farmer-bishop’s ordinations fall into the same category as baptisms
conferred by the ignorant and untrained — their validity is not
presumed, but suspect.
B.
Ethiopian Schismatics
Although the Church
treated orders conferred by most eastern schismatic groups as valid,
there was at least one exception.
The schismatic
Ethiopian (Abyssinian) clergy were widely regarded as ignorant and
barely literate; so too, the schismatic Copts (Egyptians) who
provided the Ethiopians with the sole bishop authorized to ordain
priests in their country. This bishop, called the “Abuna,” was
always a Copt. He was thus unfamiliar with the Ethiopian rites and
liturgical language (Ge’ez), and his practice was to ordain
thousands of priests at a time in the same ceremony.[23]
Faced with this,
Rome decreed that any Ethiopian priest who wanted to convert and
function as a Catholic priest had to attest first that the Abuna
imposed hands on his head and recited the prescribed prayers.
Otherwise, he had to submit to conditional ordination.[24]
So where the
minister of Holy Orders appeared to lack due knowledge and could not
be relied upon to perform the prescribed rite properly, Rome conceded
no general presumption of validity, and insisted on an inquiry for
each particular case.[25]
C.
Old Catholic Schismatics
Canonists such as
Beste[26]
and Regatillo[27]
concede the presumption of validity to orders conferred by the Old
Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany and Switzerla nd only.
Of orders conferred by the countless other
Old Catholic bishops operating (in the U.S., England, etc.) at the
time they were writing, the canonists say nothing at all.
Here too, the
distinction appears to be based on whether or not the clergy had an
ecclesiastical education. In Holland, Germany and Switzerland, Old
Catholic clergy were required to have theological training.[28]
In the other countries Old Catholic bishops conferred ordinations and
consecrations pell-mell on hundreds of untrained candidates.
To demonstrate the
problem this poses for the validity of Holy Orders conferred in the
latter group, we need take as an example only one series of Old
Catholic bishops in the U.S.: Mathew (consecrated 1908), de Landas
Berghes (1913), Carfora (1916), Rogers (1942), Brown (1969).
While the first and
third bishops in the line, Mathew and Carfora, had been
properly-trained Catholic priests and presumably would have known how
to confer a sacrament properly, the second and fourth, de Landas
Berghes and Rogers, are identified only as, respectively, “a
distinguished Austrian nobleman” and “a West Indian Negro.”[29]
But navigating
through the second most complex ceremony in the Roman Rite —
Episcopal Consecration — and getting the essential parts right (or
even knowing what they are) is not exactly something a layman picks
up in a Habsburg emperor’s court or a
Caribbean sugar cane field. There is no reason then to assume that
either de Landas Berghes or Rogers had any idea about how to confer
this sacrament validly.
This problem is
complicated by yet another: Rogers’
own priestly
ordination was doubtful, which would in turn render his episcopal
consecration doubtful.[30]
So by the time we
get to Brown in 1969, there is no possible way to sort out whether
his orders are valid or not.
Such problems are
encountered across the board with orders derived not only from the
Old Catholics,[31]
but also from the Brazilian nationalist schismatics.[32]
Sacraments conferred by the ignorant cannot be presumed valid.
D.
A Married Bishop
Finally, a true tale
about how some of the clergy described at the beginning of this
article actually confer sacraments will illustrate the problem with
assuming they are validly ordained or consecrated.
A married bishop
ordained another married man a priest using a photocopy of the
traditional ordination rite. The photocopy, however, was missing the
page containing the essential sacramental form that must be recited
for an ordination to be valid.
Since this would-be
bishop had no training, he had no idea anything was wrong. The
mistake was detected only because an apostate priest (correctly
trained) happened to be present. Not to worry, though. The apostate
priest “corrected” the error himself afterwards by imposing hands
and reciting the correct form — having announced that he had been
secretly consecrated a bishop by Pius XII himself!
*
* *
From the foregoing,
it is clear that those who lack the requisite training for the
priesthood cannot be counted on to ordain priests and consecrate
bishops validly. Accordingly, Holy Orders conferred in the underworld
menagerie of untrained Old Catholic, Brazilian-schismatic or
Palmerian chicken farmers, male nurses and estate liquidators can
enjoy no presumption
of validity.
In the practical
order, therefore, their sacraments must be treated as “absolutely
null and utterly void.”
IV.
Use of Orders by
The
Canonically Unfit
In
the years since Vatican II, various unfit candidates have managed to
obtain Holy Orders from Catholic bishops or non-Catholic bishops, and
have then gone on to function in traditionalist chapels.
Assuming it could be
proven in a given case that the orders so received were valid,
would it be permissible for such a person to exercise them
nevertheless, given the dearth of traditional Catholic priests?
A.
Orders from a Catholic Bishop
The specific purpose
of a great number of the canons regulating Holy Orders was to prevent
a Catholic bishop from ever ordaining an unfit candidate to
the priesthood, either unknowingly or knowingly, and failing that,
preventing such a man from ever functioning as a priest.
In addition to the
many regulations already cited, other canons made the diocesan
ordinary the proper minister of Holy Orders for all his subjects
(thus a gatekeeper against the unfit),[33]
forbade a bishop (under pain of suspension)[34]
from ordaining without proper permission another bishop’s
subjects,[35]
called for testimonial letters for each ordinand (verifying studies,
moral character, lack of impediments),[36]
required examinations in theology for promotion to Major Orders,[37]
legislated ordination banns (to ferret out impediments),[38]
forbade (except after rigorous investigation, and in some cases a
Vatican dispensation) receiving seminarians who had been dismissed
from or even voluntarily left other seminaries or religious
institutes.[39]
Even if an unfit
candidate could have maneuvered around these barriers and somehow
managed to find a Catholic bishop gullible or careless enough to
ordain him — a retired bishop, say — other church laws would
still have barred him from exercising his illicitly-obtained
orders.
Lacking a celebret
(the document from his diocesan bishop verifying good standing), he
could not have offered Mass publicly in any church, and lacking also
an indult to celebrate on a portable altar, he could not have offered
Mass anywhere else either. Lacking faculties from a diocesan
Ordinary, he could not have preached, performed solemn baptism,
brought communion to the sick, conferred absolution and extreme
unction (except in danger of death), witnessed marriages, or even
blessed rosaries and scapulars.
And needless to say,
canon law explicitly prohibits a married man who has managed to
obtain Holy Orders from exercising them.[40]
In a word, Church
law would have barred the canonically unfit priest from nearly all
priestly acts, because only a priest who had received the required
seminary formation would have been authorized to perform them.
Unless you entered
the priesthood by this gate, you did not function at all — and this
is the standard to apply to the canonically unfit traditionalist
clergy who have managed to obtain Holy Orders from a Catholic bishop.
No priestly
training, no priestly work.
B.
Orders from a Schismatic
In not a few
instances since Vatican II, we encounter the case of a traditional
Catholic who receives ordination or even episcopal consecration from
a non-Catholic bishop (an Old Catholic or Brazilian schismatic, for
instance), and then begins ministering to traditional Catholics. In
some cases, he has made a Profession of Faith and Abjuration of Error
in an attempt to rectify the anomaly of receiving orders from a
schismatic.
As I have noted
elsewhere, receiving orders this way might not, in and of itself,
incur an excommunication, still less one that would automatically
“infect” unsuspecting laymen associated with a person so
ordained.
That said, although
one traditionalist writer calls such orders “tarnished gold,” the
correct adjective is “stolen.” Holy Orders are the property of
the Church, whose law forbids the canonically unfit to receive or
exercise them.
While the Church
usually permitted those who had been raised and ordained in schism to
exercise their orders when they abjured and were received into the
Church, a Catholic who went outside the Church to receive Holy
Orders — even if their validity was certain — was not
permitted to exercise them, even if he repented of his action.
In 1709 the Holy See
was asked the following question about the reception of orders from a
schismatic:
“Because there is
a need for priests to serve Armenian Catholic churches both in Aspaan
and Giulfa where there are no Armenian Catholic bishops, is it
permitted to send someone to be ordained and receive Holy Orders from
one of the schismatic and heretical bishops?”
The Holy Office
responded: “This is in no way permitted, and those ordained by such
bishops are irregular and suspended from the exercise of Orders.”[41]
This was also the
Church’s practice in the more recent case of René Villatte
(1854–1929).
Vilatte, a drop-out
from several Catholic seminaries and religious communities, was
ordained a priest in 1885 by the Swiss Old Catholic bishop of Berne,
and then (it is said) consecrated a bishop in 1892 by Syro-Jacobite
schismatics in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). This erratic character consecrated
at least seven bishops between 1898 and 1929; no one knows how many
priests he ordained.[42]
In 1925 he made a
formal declaration of his repentance before the Papal Nuncio in
Paris, was received back into the Church, and was allowed to live in
retirement at the Cistercian Abbey of Pont-Colbert at Versailles.
Even though there
could be no question about the validity of his priestly ordination,
Vilatte was not permitted to exercise the orders he received outside
the Church. He was treated as a layman.[43]
This is the
principle to apply to the would-be traditional Catholic priest or
bishop who has received priestly ordination or episcopal consecration
from schismatics. His orders — even if he could prove their
validity beyond any doubt — are “stolen.” He is forbidden to
exercise them, and thereby profit from his theft.
V.
Objections
And
Evasions
Here
are various objections I have heard made to the foregoing, along with
my responses:
A.
Private Study. I can study on my own while I live at home, and
then find a bishop to ordain me.
“The theological
course of studies must be taken, not privately, but in schools
instituted for this purpose according to the prescribed course
of studies laid down in canon 1365.”[44]
And the law
prescribes that your must live
in the seminary: “The obligation affecting the course of theology
requires not merely study in a seminary, but actual residence, and
the obligation is a grave one.”[45]
The purpose of this
law is not merely to insure proper academic
formation. In a seminary superiors will
observe, form and judge the seminarian’s character and behavior —
something very difficult to do if he does not live in community with
them.
Theology, moreover,
is not just some sort of advanced catechism course, but an actual
science. You need qualified teachers who explain the material
and test you on it.
B.
Pius XII. Pope Pius XII didn’t go to a seminary, but studied
on his own at home, and then was ordained. If he did it, anyone can
do it.
False. Pius XII,
because of ill health, received special permission from the Cardinal
Vicar of Rome to live at home while studying for the
priesthood.
This is consistent
with an exception allowed by Canon 972.1, permitting the Ordinary to
dispense a seminarian from the obligation to reside in a seminary,
“in a particular case, and for a grave reason.”[46]
The young Pacelli
did not “study on his own.” Although he lived at home, he
attended classes at the Pontifical Gregorian University, studied
philosophy, Latin and Greek at the University of the Sapienza, and
took theology at the Papal Athenaeum of St. Apollinaris where he
obtained a Baccalaureate and Licentiate in theology summa cum
laude.
C.
Inapplicable Canons. Because of the situation in the Church,
the canons prescribing a lengthy spiritual and academic formation for
priests no longer apply.
Also false.
Canonists such as Cicognani[47]
and Bouscaren-Ellis[48]
lay down specific criteria for when an ecclesiastical law
ceases. Commentators agree that intrinsic cessation of an
ecclesiastical law occurs only when if becomes useless, harmful or
unreasonable.
In light of the many
papal pronouncements on the grave obligation to ordain only those who
are properly formed, no one can make such a case against the laws
cited above.
Nor may one invoke
epikeia or equity here, for this must be governed by what moralists
call gnomé,
a type of mature prudence in judgment.[49]
Popes, as we have seen, have warned time and time again that it is
imprudent
and dangerous
to ordained the canonically unfit.
D.
Need for Priests. We live in extraordinary times. Our greatest
need is to have more priests to celebrate the traditional Mass. So
what if they don’t have proper training? Having the Mass is all
that matters.
First listen to Pius
XI: “One well-trained priest is worth more than many trained badly
or scarcely at all. For such would be not merely unreliable but a
likely source of sorrow to the Church.”[50]
Then St. Thomas:
“God never abandons His Church; and so the number of priests
will be always sufficient for the needs of the faithful, provided the
worthy are advanced, and the
unworthy sent away…
Should it ever become impossible to maintain the present number, it
is better to have a few good priests than a multitude of bad
ones.”[51]
E.
“My Vocation.” A traditional Catholic who perseveres in
wanting to be a priest, even though he has been turned away by
various traditionalist seminaries and has not received proper
training, would be justified in obtaining ordination nevertheless.
Such a person is a
recurring “type,” both in the history of the Old Catholic
movement and in certain modern-day traditionalist circles. He is the
Catholic who wants to be a priest, but is repeatedly told by various
seminary and religious superiors that he is unfit for the priesthood
on intellectual, spiritual, moral or psychological grounds.
Instead of accepting
their judgment, he decides he knows better, so he talks a retired
Catholic bishop into ordaining him, or goes to a schismatic who not
only ordains him, but even makes him a bishop. No fuss, no need to
pass years in a seminary where he is tested and judged for “positive
proof of uprightness” and “the required knowledge.”
It never occurs to
the would-be priest that his act demonstrates that he lacks either
the virtues (prudence, humility, etc.) or the knowledge (of church
law, etc.) that a candidate for ordination should possess.
In other words, the
very fact he has obtained Holy Orders this way confirms what
superiors told him earlier: He has no vocation and he is unfit
to be a priest.
F.
Bad Results. Many priests produced by the old system before
Vatican II turned out bad, as even did many priests produced by
traditionalist seminaries after Vatican II. Why insist on going
through all this trouble?
The reason in both
cases is fallen human nature. Priests who have been well trained can
nevertheless fall into sin or abandon the faith. Such failures of
individuals do not discredit the system that the Council of Trent
established and canon law prescribed.
As any parent knows,
you can faithfully and consistently provide children with all the
proper religious and moral training called for in manuals for
Catholic parents, but the child as an adult can still choose to go
astray. The important thing for the parent’s own salvation,
however, is that he did his duty.
G.
We’re Contemplative Monks. We are monks, so we don’t need
all this rigorous academic training in Latin, philosophy and theology
before ordination. Besides, intellectual pursuits and arguments make
priests worldly and proud. Our only interest is contemplation.
This may sound
plausible to laymen and even to some priests, but as a former
Cisterican monk, I don’t buy it.
The abbey I entered
and another abbey to which I was later sent were both contemplative
houses with strict monastic observances. Nevertheless, monks from
both had always been required to receive the same academic formation
before ordination that other priests received.
Pius XI, moreover
said you do
need
the studies: “The principal object of this Letter is to exhort
religious, whether they are already ordained or preparing for
admission to the priesthood, to assiduous study of the sacred
sciences; unless
they are thoroughly acquainted with these subjects, they will not be
capable of fulfilling properly the duties of their vocations.”[52]
Nor — again
according to Pius XI — can you play the contemplative card to
justify ignorance: “It is a mistake for them [those who lead the
contemplative life of the cloister] to think that, if theological
studies were neglected before ordination or subsequently abandoned,
they can easily dwell in the height and be raised up to interior
union with God, even though they lack that abundant knowledge of God
and of the mysteries of the faith which is derived from the sacred
science.”[53]
H.
Too Much Work. Providing all the academic training
traditionally required is impossible. There are not enough professors
or priests to do all this work
Teaching courses on
Latin, philosophy and theology is a lot of work.
But it is possible
in our times to give seminarians a complete academic formation that
will be sufficient in their priestly work.
There are many
excellent basic seminary manuals that cover all the necessary ground
for the required courses. It takes a lot of time and self-discipline
for the teacher to prepare classes based on these manuals and for the
student to learn the material they contain.
The effort required
to organize and supervise this is worth it — because it produces a
properly-formed priest worthy of his calling.
I.
Sterile Polemic. You are engaging in sterile intellectual
polemics in which we have no interest. Your comments are
uncharitable, unspiritual and divisive. As a priest, you should keep
them to yourself. You are like the Pharisee who boastfully looked
upon himself as someone special above the rank and file of the
unworthies of the world!
Here is Pius XI on
our responsibility to speak out: against an ill-trained clergy: “What
a terrifying account, Venerable Brethren, we shall have to give to
the Prince of Shepherds, to the Supreme Bishop of souls, if
we have handed over these souls to incompetent guides and incapable
leaders.”[54]
VI.
Resumé and
Conclusions
We
may sum up the foregoing as follows:
(1) Church law
requires that anyone ordained to the priesthood possess canonical
fitness (idoneitas canonica).
The two principal
criteria that determine a candidate’s canonical fitness for
ordination are (a) virtuous conduct (mores congruentes) and
(b) the required knowledge (debita scientia).
The seminary system
established by the Council of Trent and prescribed by canon law
provides candidates for ordination with a proper spiritual formation
(through the seminary rule, daily schedule, regular spiritual
direction, observation and correction, and faculty evaluation) and
the required ecclesiastical education (knowledge and understanding of
Latin, two years philosophy, four years theology). The Tridentine
system insures that ordinands are “properly judged” (rite
probati) over a long period of time on both their conduct and
their knowledge, and that they are therefore indeed canonically fit
for ordination.
Papal legislation
and pronouncements repeatedly warn that these requirements are grave
obligations and that ignoring them endangers the souls of the
faithful.
A candidate who has
not been “properly judged” according to the norms of law as to
his virtue and knowledge is canonically unfit for the priesthood.
(2) A bishop who
confers major orders on a canonically unfit candidate commits mortal
sin. (Canon 973.)
(3) Holy
orders conferred by a canonically unfit bishop — one who, as among
the Old Catholics, Brazilian schismatics, the Palmar de Troya
hierarchy and others, lacked the requisite seminary education —
enjoy no presumption
of validity. In practice, therefore, episcopal or priestly orders
derived from such bishops must be treated as invalid.
(4) Even if in
a particular case a canonically unfit candidate could prove
that his priestly ordination or episcopal consecration was certainly
valid, he would still be barred from exercising the orders so
received, irrespective of whether they were conferred upon him by a
Catholic or a schismatic prelate.
*
* *
The law and
tradition of the Church, then, require that her ministers be formed
and tested for their virtue and knowledge before receiving the
dignity of Holy Orders, and that the unfit be excluded.
A canonically unfit
priest or bishop, even though he may be validly ordained, dishonors
the Catholic priesthood and endangers the salvation of souls each
time he ascends the altar, enters the confessional or — still worse
— puts on a miter and raises to Holy Orders yet more of the
ignorant and the unfit.
The dignity of
Christ’s priesthood and the general good of the Church require that
the traditional Catholic laity refuse sacramental ministrations from
these men and give no support to their apostolates. To do otherwise
lends credence and respectability to what deserves only contempt and
condemnation, as is evident from the terrifying words of Pope Pius
XI:
“Anyone who
undertakes the sacred ministry without training or competence should
tremble for his own fate, for the Lord will not suffer his ignorance
to go unpunished; it is the Lord who has uttered the dire warning:
‘Because thou has rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou
shalt not do the office of priesthood to me’.”
If the Lord Himself
rejects the unfit, the traditional Catholic laity can do no less —
for the only type of person fit to celebrate a Tridentine Mass is a
real Tridentine priest.
(Monograph
2003).
bibliography
Abbo,
J & J. Hannon. The Sacred
Canons. St. Louis: Herder 1957.
Acta
Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale,
Rome, 1909–. (AAS).
Anson,
P. Bishops at Large.
London: Faber 1964.
Baumgarten,
P. “Old Catholics,” Catholic
Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton 1913)
11:235–6.
Beste,
U. Introductio In Codicem.
Collegeville MN: St. John’s 1946.
Bouscaren
SJ, T. & A. Ellis SJ. Canon Law: A Text
and Commentary. Milwaukee: Bruce 1946. 2
vols.
Cekada,
A. “The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations,” Sacerdotium
3 (Spring 1992) 1–34. Available on
www.traditionalmass.org.
_____
. “Warning on the Old Catholics,” The Roman Catholic
(1980).
Cicognani,
A. Canon Law,
2nd rev. ed., trans. by Joseph M. O’Hara. Westminster MD: Newman
1934.
Code
of Canon Law. 1917.
Collectanea
S.C. de Propaganda Fide: 1602–1906 (Rome:
Polyglot 1907). 2 vols.
Fortescue,
A. The Lesser Eastern Churches
London: CTS 1913.
Gasparri,
P. Tractatus Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione.
Paris: Delhomme 1893.
Holy
Office of the Inquisition. Decree Bisognando,
21 November 1709, 278, in Collectanea S.C.P.F
_____
. Response Ordinatio Presbyteri, 10 April 1704, in Gasparri,
1057.
Merkelbach
OP, B. Summa Theologiae Moralis,
8th ed. Montreal: Desclée 1949. 3 vols.
Ochoa,
X. ed. Leges Ecclesiae post Codicem.
Rome:1969. 4 vols.
Pietrzyk,
S. A Practical Formulary in Accordance with
the Code of Canon Law. Little Rock: Pioneer
1949,
Pius
X. Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum,
1 September 1910, AAS 2 (1910), 655ff
Pius
XI. Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii,
20 December 1935, AAS 28 (1936), 5ff.
_____
. Apostolic Letter Officium Omnium Ecclesiarum, 1 August 1922.
AAS 14 (1922), 449ff.
_____
. Apostolic Letter Unigenitus Dei Filius, 19 March 1924, AAS
16 (1924), 137. 133ff.
Pius
XII. Discorsi e Radiomessagi di sua Santità
Pio XII. Vatican: 1952. 16 vols.
_____
. Allocution to the Discalced Carmelites Magis Quam, 23
September 1951. In Discorsi, 13:255–9.
_____
. Exhortation to all the clergy Menti Nostrae, 23 September
1950, AAS 42 (1950), 657ff.
Prümmer
OP, D. Manuale Theologiae Moralis,
10th ed. Barcelona: Herder 1946. 3 vols.
SC
Religious & SC Seminaries. Joint Decree
Consiliis Initis, 25
July 1941, AAS 33 (1941), 371.
SC
Seminaries. Private to Abp. of Toledo, 8 May 1945.
_____
. Private to Vicar General of Cologne, Rispondiamo, 12 January
1950, in Ochoa 2:2727-8.
“Schismatical
Movements among Catholics,” American
Ecclesiastical Review 21 (July 1899), 1–13
Wernz
SJ, F. & P. Vidal SJ. Ius
Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1934. 8 vols.
[1]
A group of
schismatic bodies connected to the 17th cent. Jansenists of Utrecht,
or to the 19th-cent. liberals who rejected papal infallibility. For
an overview, see A. Cekada, “Warning on the Old Catholics,” The
Roman Catholic
(1980).
[2]
Founded
1945, by Mgr. Carlos Duarte Costa (1888–1961), former Bishop of
Bocatú, Brazil, who was excommunicated for attacking the authority
of the pope. This was a liberal movement that instituted a
vernacular liturgy, and abolished clerical celibacy and auricular
confession.
[3]
Anti-Vatican
II Spanish apparitionist movement founded by seer Clemente
Dominguez. In 1976 several bishops for the group were consecrated by
the former Archbishop of Hué, Mgr. P.M. Ngo-dinh-Thuc (1897–1984),
who later repudiated Palmar. The traditionalist priests Mgr. Thuc
consecrated as bishops in 1981, Frs. M.L. Guérard des Lauriers OP,
Moises Carmona Rivera and Adolfo Zamora Hernandez were
sedevacantists who had no connection with Palmar.
[4]
“Mores
ordini recipiendo congruentes,” “debita scientia.” The canon
lists five other requirements that are easy to verify: Confirmation,
canonical age, reception of lower orders, observance of the time
intervals (interstices) between orders and canonical title for major
orders.
[6]
Canon 972.1.
“Curandum ut ad sacros ordines adspirantes inde a teneris annis in
Seminario recipiantur; sed omnes ibidem commorari tenentur
saltem per integrum sacra theologiae curriculum.” I shall discuss
one exception below.
[8]
Encyclical
Ad
Catholici Sacerdotii,
20 December 1935, AAS 28 (1936), 42–3. Canon 973.3 uses language
nearly identical to the quote from St. Alphonsus.
[13]
Canon
1365.1–2. “§1. In philosophiam rationalem cum affinibus
disciplinis alumni per integrum saltem biennium incumbant. §2.
Cursus theologicus saltem integro quadriennio contineantur, et,
praeter theologiam dogmaticam et moralem, complecti praesertim debet
studium sacrae Scripturae, historiae ecclesiasticae, juris canonici,
liturgiae, sacrae eloquentiae et cantus ecclesiastici. § 3.
Habeantur etiam lectiones de theologia pastorali, additis practicis
exercitationibus praesertim de ratione tradendi pueris aliisve
catechismum, audiendi confessiones, visitandi infirmos, assistendi
moribundis.”
[15]
Allocution
to the Discalced Carmelites Magis
Quam,
23 September 1951, in Discorsi
e Radiomessagi di sua Santità Pio XII
(Vatican: 1952) 13:258. “…reputandus est lamentabili mentis
laborare squalore.”
[16]
Canon
976.1-2. “Nemo sive saecularis sive religiosus ad primam tonsuram
promoveatur ante inceptum cursum theologicam. Firmo praescripto can.
975, subdiaconatus ne conferatur, nisi exeunte tertio cursus
theologici anno; diaconatus, nisi incepto quarto anno;
presbyteratus, nisi post medietatem eiusdem quarti anni.”
[17]
Canon 973.3.
“Episcopus sacros ordines nemini conferat quin ex positivis
argumentis moraliter certus sit de ejus canonica idoneitate; secus
non solum gravissime peccat, sed etiam periculo sese committit
alienis communicandi peccatis.” My emphasis.
[19]
See S.
Pietrzyk, A
Practical Formulary in Accordance with the Code of Canon Law (Little
Rock: Pioneer 1949), 168. In an alternative formula the bishop
attests that the candidate met all the requirements prescribed by
Trent and the Code.
[21]
B.
Merkelbach, Summa
Theologiae Moralis,
8th ed. (Montreal: Desclée 1949) 3:165. “…persona omnino seria,
etiam mera obstetrix, quae sit fide digna, circumspecta, et in ritu
baptizandi instructa…”
[24]
Holy Roman
Inquisition, Response Ordinatio
Presbyteri,
10 April 1704, in P. Gasparri, Tractatus
Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione (Paris:
Delhomme 1893) 1057. This response also refutes the argument made by
the Society of St. Pius V that the Catholic priests consecrated
bishops by Abp. Thuc in 1981 could not attest to the fact of their
own consecrations. If the statements of ignorant Africans about
their ordinations (some stark naked when ordained [Fortescue, 311n])
were sufficient proof for Rome, there should be no problem accepting
the word of a Dominican theologian (Bp. Guérard) or a seminary
professor and pastor (Bp. Carmona) who states that he has been duly
consecrated a bishop.
[28]
Dutch Old
Catholics studied at their theological school in Utrecht or at a
university, Germans at a theological school in Bonn, and the Swiss
at the University of Berne. P. Baumgarten, “Old Catholics,”
Catholic
Encyclopedia
(New York: Appleton 1913) 11:235–6. These groups were also
organized and somewhat centralized. They consecrated a limited
number of bishops, kept proper records, followed the old ordination
rites, and had clear lines of succession.
[30]
He appears
to have been ordained a priest in the Vilatte succession (Anson,
433), which was of uncertain validity. According to most theologians
the order of priesthood is required to receive episcopal
consecration validly.
[31]
Apologists
for the validity of Old Catholic or Old Roman Catholic orders in the
United States (the terms are interchangeable) invariably try to
support their case by citing the same group of published statements
by various Catholic authors. With one exception, however, these
statements appeared not in theological works, but in popular ones
(various religious dictionaries for the laity, overviews of
non-Catholic sects, etc.), or they refer to the Old Catholic bodies
in Europe about whose orders there is no dispute. The one article
cited from a scholarly journal (“Schismatical Movements among
Catholics,” American
Ecclesiastical Review
21 [July 1899], 2–3) is from a passage concerning the specific
issue of the priestly
ordination
of René Vilatte which cannot be disputed. The passage cited proves
nothing about subsequent
Old Catholic episcopal consecrations in the U.S., which were a dog’s
breakfast of the type already described above.
[32]
Among these
bishops we encounter, for instance, a vestment dealer jailed twice
for fraud and a seminary drop-out who, starting in 1961, worked his
way through at least three different nationalist Old Catholic and
eastern sects.
[33]
Canon 955.1.
This was the rule for secular clergy. A slightly different procedure
applied for religious, but the effect was the same.
[39]
Canon
1363.3. SC Religious & SC Seminaries, joint Decree Consiliis
Initis,
25 July 1941, AAS 33 (1941), 371. SC Seminaries, private to Abp. Of
Toledo 8 May 1945. SC Seminaries private to Vicar General of
Cologne, Rispondiamo,
12 January 1950, Ochoa, Leges
Ecclesiae post Codicem (Rome:1969)
2:2727-8.
[40]
Canon 132.3.
“Conjugatus qui sine dispensatione apostolica ordines majores,
licet bona fide, suscepit, ab eorunem ordinum exercitio prohibetur.”
[41]
Holy Office,
Decree Bisognando,
21 November 1709, 278, in Collectanea
S.C. de Propaganda Fide: 1602–1906 (Rome:
Polyglot 1907) 1:92.. “Bisognando qualche ministro per servigio
delle chiese degli armeni cattolici, tanto in Aspaan quanto in
Giulfa, per non esservi vescovi armeni cattolici, si mandano ad
ordinare ed a prender gli ordini sacri da qualcuno dei vescovi
scismatici ed eretici. R. Nullo modo licere; et ordinati ab
hujusmodi Episcopis sunt irregulares, ac suspensi ab exercitio
Ordinum.” The cities mentioned are in present-day Iran.
[43]
Anson,
126-8. As regards his episcopal orders, Mgr. Chaptal, Auxiliary
Bishop of Paris said that Cardinal Merry del Val did not regard
Vilatte’s ordinations and consecrations as valid because they had
been so “commericialized.” Anson, 128. Fr. Joseph van
Grevenbroek, the abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Spring Bank where
I was once a novice, had been a young priest at Pont-Colbert when
Vilatte was still alive and told us that the abbot of Pont-Colbert,
Fr. Janssens, tried to press Cardinal Merry del Val into issuing a
statement on the validity of Vilatte’s episcopal consecrations.
The Cardinal replied: “We’ll never
issue
a decision.”
[44]
Canon 976.3
“Cursus theologicus peractus esse debet non privatim, sed in
scholis ad id institutis secundum studiorum rationem can. 1365
determinatam.”
[54]
Ad
Catholici Sacerdotii,
44. The last part of the phrase is not only more pointed in Latin,
but also very cleverly balanced: “…rectoribus inertis
imperitisque magistris…”
