Classic study calls conditional ordination a 'measure of prudence'
In his defence of the new rites of episcopal consecration, Fr Pierre-Marie OP nonetheless refers to conditional ordination as 'the usage that seems to prevail' and a 'measure of prudence.'
In his defence of the new rites of episcopal consecration, Fr Pierre-Marie OP nonetheless refers to conditional ordination as 'the usage that seems to prevail' and a 'measure of prudence.'
In a previous article, we discussed the 2005 study into the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, written by Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay OP of the Dominicans of Avrillé. In this study, Fr Pierre-Marie argues that the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC) is indeed valid, at least in its Latin form.
Fr Pierre-Marie is a Dominican of the community in Avrillé, France. The Avrillé Dominicans are a traditionalist order, now affiliated with Bishop Jean-Michel Faure of “The Resistance.”
In recent years, they have appeared to distance themselves somewhat from the study in question. Nonetheless, this study remains foundational to traditionalists of various different stripes.
It was originally published in their quarterly journal, Le Sel de la terre, under the title ‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ?’—which translates into English as ‘Is the new rite of episcopal consecration valid?’1
It was translated and published by the American magazine The Angelus in December 2005 and January 2006.2 Its new title (‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’) was an intriguing reframing of the issue.
Since that time, nearly every “validist”—as we might dub those who defend the validity of the new rites—cites Fr Pierre-Marie’s study in defence of their opinion. Because of this, there have also been many rebuttals and refutations of Fr Pierre-Marie’s study over the years.
However, as I said previously, I do not wish to enter the field of controversy here. In place of an adversarial approach, I would like to highlight some key points made by this study, which appear to have been forgotten or overlooked today.
More hardline than sometimes presumed
In the previous part, I showed that Fr Pierre-Marie explicitly rejects a common validist objection, namely that the invalidity of the new rites would necessarily mean the destruction and disappearance of the hierarchy. To his credit, the Dominican refuses to allow such a faulty argument to be marshalled in defence of his thesis. We explained his treatment of this issue here:
In this part, I will show that…
Fr Pierre-Marie states that his study is only intended to prove the validity of the NREC “as it was published by the Vatican”
His study concedes that one cannot assume that a man has been validly ordained/consecrated just because he has undergone the NRPO (new rite of priestly ordination) or NREC ceremonies, whether in Latin or the vernacular
Even if we assume Fr Pierre-Marie has proven his thesis, a man cannot be permitted to administer the sacraments until his consecration and/or ordination have been examined and found to be valid—which is very difficult to do
His study affirms the practice of conditionally ordaining/consecrating such men before permitting them to administer the sacraments to traditionalists.
Only proves the validity of the NREC “as it was published by the Vatican”
Fr Pierre-Marie set himself the task of proving the validity of the new rite “as it was published by the Vatican”—i.e., in Latin, and followed “correctly.”
While he believes that he has successfully proved this, he clearly states the limitations of such a proof. In the conclusion, he states:
“[I]f the new rite is still valid per se, it is quite possible that, owing to bad translations or an adaptation of the rite that strayed too far from the original, or because of a consecrator’s defect of intention, in certain particular cases we could have an invalid ceremony.”3
Elsewhere in the study he makes the same point, and acknowledges that there can be “serious reasons for doubting the validity of certain episcopal consecrations”:
“Let it be said, though, that we are only speaking of the validity of the new rite as it was published by the Vatican.
“We do not speak of the legitimacy of this reform (was it good to suppress the Roman rite and replace it by an Eastern rite?), nor of the validity of the different translations and adaptations of the official right [sic?] in divers particular cases: because of the generalized disorder that prevails in matters both of liturgy and dogma, there can be serious reasons for doubting the validity of certain episcopal consecrations.”4
The fact of a undergoing a ceremony does not establish conferral of valid orders
The necessary corollary of Fr Pierre-Marie’s point is this: the mere fact of having undergone a particular ceremony does not establish the validity of a given man’s holy orders.
We saw that Fr Pierre-Marie only claimed to have proven that the NREC is valid in Latin, when followed correctly. But how often does this happen, outside of Rome? He does not even claim to have proven the validity of any given vernacular translation; therefore, even if we conceded that this study has established something about the NREC on the theoretical level, this does not establish much on the practical level.
Following the second text above, Fr Pierre-Marie refers to two specific examples given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
“For instance, on the occasion of the episcopal consecration of Msgr. Daneels, Auxiliary Bishop of Brussels, Archbishop Lefebvre said:
They published booklets for this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and then repeated by the crowd: “Be an apostle like Peter and Paul, be an apostle like the patron saint of this parish, be an apostle like Gandhi, be an apostle like Luther, be an apostle like Martin Luther King, be an apostle like Helder Camara, be an apostle like Romero....” An apostle like Luther?! What intention did those bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Msgr. Daneels? (1983)
It’s frightening... Has this bishop really been consecrated? It can be doubted, all the same. If that was the intention of the consecrators, then it is unimaginable! The situation is even more serious than we had thought. (1988)5
Other such cases occurred in the 1970s; Lefebvre and others discussed them on several occasions.
In other words, Fr Pierre-Marie acknowledges the bare fact of a man having undergone the NREC or NRPO ceremonies does not justify assuming that holy orders have been validly conferred.
Examinations of validity
Even assuming the validity of the NREC for the sake of argument, further examination and argumentation would be needed before one could assume that a given minister has validly received holy orders.
This is why Fr Pierre-Marie concludes this section about “the serious reasons for doubting the validity of certain episcopal consecrations”:
“It would be necessary to examine each case.”6
Why is this? Why could we not just hope for the best, and entrust the matter to God?
It is a question of morality. It is not possible to receive the sacraments, or to confer them, or to permit them to be conferred, on the basis of doubtful or merely probable opinions. As such—still assuming the NREC’s validity—the traditionalist clergy and faithful cannot, without being indifferent to the possibility of sacrilege, simply accept the administration of the sacraments by a man whose orders depend on the fact that he underwent the ceremonies of the NRPO/NREC.
On the contrary, there must be moral certainty that such a man has been validly ordained/consecrated.
We have discussed this point at length elsewhere.
Assuming the NREC’s validity, such moral certainty might be attained in one of two ways:
Verifying whether or not holy orders had already been validly conferred
Repeating the conferral of holy orders sub conditione (conditionally), in a way that is certainly valid, without any dependence on the new rites.
For the first option, what would have to be examined?
Whether there were significant deviations from the rite, especially in its essential parts
Whether any vernacular translations of such essential parts were sufficiently accurate
Whether there were grounds to assume a defect of intention on the part of the minister.
But this examination could not only be into the ceremony in which the given man apparently received his holy orders. It would need to extend to the priestly ordination and episcopal consecration of his ordaining/consecrating bishop—as well as to those of each bishop in his lineage, going back to 1968 when the new rites were introduced.
Regarding such examinations, Fr Pierre-Marie acknowledges “the difficulty of the thing.” But such an examination is not just “difficult”: it is impractical to such a degree as to be morally impossible; and this difficulty increases exponentially with every year that passes.
We could add that it also represents a significant expenditure of time and resources that could otherwise be directed elsewhere, and that such examinations (as well as private studies such as Fr Pierre-Marie's) lack the authority to settle such a question.
Conditional ordination/consecration
This is why Fr Pierre-Marie concludes:
“Given the difficulty of the thing, the usage that seems to prevail among traditionalists is to conditionally re-ordain priests ordained by the conciliar Church and returning to Tradition. This prudential measure obviously does not weaken the conclusion of our study on the validity of the new rite in itself.”7
This route also provides the following practical advantages:
Conditional ordination/consecration takes considerably less time and resources than a lengthy examination of multiple ordination/consecration ceremonies taking place in the past
Conditional ordination/consecration results in unquestionable moral certainty; whereas studies and examinations by private individuals or traditionalist organisations depend on too many variables, uncertainties and disputed factors
While possibly unsettling for some, conditional ordination/consecration represents the only just solution that maintains consensus, peace and the common good. This is because this “prudential measure,” which is absolutely necessary before anyone who is not of the “validist” opinion can approach such a man for the sacraments, is also completely compatible with believing the rite to be valid—as Fr Pierre-Marie himself acknowledges.
Conclusion
By considering the actual text of Fr Pierre-Marie’s study—as well as the later reception of it by his own Dominican community—we can see that…
It does not justify assuming that any given man ordained/consecrated in the new rites has validly received orders; nor does it claim to do so.
It does not justify approaching any such man for the sacraments, or for permitting such a man to be approached; nor does it claim to do so.
It does not present its conclusions as a basis for attaining moral certainty as to the validity of such a man’s ordination/consecration
It does affirm “the usage that seems to prevail” as a “prudential measure” for attaining such moral certainty, namely conditional ordination/consecration of such a man.
In fact, Fr Pierre-Marie’s study does not seem to have been intended for any practical purpose at all: rather, whether we deem it to have been successful or not, it seems to have been an attempt to establish the NREC’s validity in theory alone.
More importantly, we can recognise the wisdom in prescinding from practical questions like those mentioned above. After all, in the words of Fr Peter Scott FSSPX:
“For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders, we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:
“‘We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible….’”8 (Emphasis added)
See the full index on this matter here:
Read Next:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ?’ Sel de la Terre, No.54., Autumn 2005. Available in French here.
Fr Pierre-Marie OP, ‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’, published in The Angelus from Sel de la Terre, No. 54, Autumn 2005, pp 72-129.
Ibid., Standalone edition, p 27. From the original:
Cela dit, comme nous le notions à la fin de la « Réponse à la question » (p. 105), si le nouveau rite « en soi » est valide, il est fort possible que dans certains cas particuliers, suite à de mauvaises traductions, ou à une adaptation du rite qui s’éloignerait grandement de l’original, ou encore à un défaut d’intention du célébrant, nous ayons dans tel ou tel cas une cérémonie invalide. (p 119)
Ibid. 16.
Remarquons cependant que nous ne parlons que de la validité du nouveau rite, tel qu’il a été publié par le Vatican. Nous ne parlons pas de la légitimité de cette réforme (était-il bon de supprimer le rite romain pour le remplacer par un rite oriental ?), ni de la validité des différentes traductions et adaptations du rite officiel dans les divers cas particuliers : en raison du désordre généralisé, tant au niveau liturgique que dogmatique, on peut avoir de sérieuses raisons de douter de la validité de certaines consécrations épiscopales. (p 105)
Ibid. 16.
A l’occasion du sacre épiscopal de Mgr Daneels, évêque auxiliaire de Bruxelles, Mgr Lefebvre disait : On a publié des petits livrets à l’occasion de ce sacre. Pour les prières publiques, voici ce qui était dit, et qui était répété par la foule :
« Sois apôtre comme Pierre et Paul, sois apôtre comme le patron de cette paroisse, sois apôtre comme Gandhi, sois apôtre comme Luther, sois apôtre comme Luther King, sois apôtre comme Helder Camara, sois apôtre comme Romero… » Apôtre comme Luther, mais quelle intention ont les évêques lorsqu’ils consacrent cet évêque, Mgr Daneels ?
C’est effrayant… Est-ce que cet évêque est vraiment consacré ? On peut quand même en douter. Si c’est cela l’intention des consécrateurs, c’est inimaginable ! La situation est encore plus grave qu’on ne le croit. (Ibid.)
Ibid. 17.
Il faudrait examiner chaque cas. (Ibid.)
Ibid. 16-17.
Devant la difficulté de la chose, l’usage semble prévaloir chez les traditionalistes de réordonner sous condition les prêtres issus de l’Église conciliaire qui reviennent à la Tradition. Cette mesure de prudence ne peut évidemment pas infirmer la conclusion de notre étude sur la validité du nouveau rituel en lui-même. (Ibid.)
"For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders..." Validity is not really the issue. It is being used as a 'conversation' to achieve a desired end - the riddence of the Novus Ordo imposition. We hope and pray. Sadly it has been a cause for sede clerics - Sanbornists etc. - and their home alone lay disciples calumniating real priests and bishops calling them 'Mr'. Pretty evil, but they probably don't care as they absolve sins, confect the Eucharist, administer last rites, etc. As to labels (denominations); 'Invalidists'... 'Validists' at least doesn't sound in need of an opinionist wheelchair.
Of course, now days, the SSPX takes a different posture, holding out the example of Archbishop Lefebvre having admitted Fr. Starks, who was never conditionally ordained (as though the exception has now become the rule).