Fr. Calderon's Study on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations

[Stone]

From The Catacombs archives: 


Some of you may recall a short article posted here on The Catacombs  in which references a study by Fr. Alvaro Calderón, assistant Rector of the SSPX La Reja Seminary in Argentina, on the [Novus Ordo] Rite of Episcopal Consecration of Pope Paul VI.

Fr. Calderon's study was published by SiSiNoNo No. 267 in November of 2014 and may be found online here.

Below is a computer translation of Fr. Calderón's 'Conclusion' to his 2014 study on Episcopal Consecration [Italicized emphasis in the original. All other emphasis mine]:

If we consider the matter, form and intention of the new rite of episcopal consecration in the context of the rite and in the circumstances of its institution, it seems to us that it is most probably valid, because it not only means what it should mean, but that most of its elements are taken from rites received by the Church (32).

But we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity (the italicized Spanish words are no hay certezade su validez), because it suffers from two major defects, which we could classify as one [canonical] and the other theological.

- Canonical defect. For this reason: above, the institution of this New Rite cannot be considered legitimate.

- Theological defect. The Novus Ordo is not the same but only similar to other rites accepted by the Church. Although certainly these rites, on the one hand, are not very precise in their concepts; and on the other hand, the differences introduced by the Novus Ordo follow tendencies of bad doctrine. All this makes theological judgment, always difficult in these matters, even more difficult.

Now, in a matter of the utmost importance for the life of the Church, as is the validity of the episcopate, it becomes necessary to have absolute certainty. Therefore, to be able to accept this rite with peace of conscience, it would be necessary not to have only the sentence of theologians, but the infallible sentence of the Magisterium.


As for the practical attitude to sustain in the face of the new episcopal consecrations, it seems to us that the one that had supported the Fraternity until now is justified:

1. The very probable validity of the rite seems to us to make it morally acceptable to occasionally attend Mass (traditional rite) celebrated by an ordained priest or bishop the Church is not to be consecrated in the new rite, or even to receive communion in it; it seems to us acceptable, in case of necessity, to receive the acquittal from them; treat them as priests and bishops and not as lay people in disguise; we find it acceptable to allow them to celebrate in our own houses. For the shadows that float over the validity of his priesthood are but shadows, and in all those activities our responsibility for the priesthood exercised is not compromised. And the remote risk of a communion or an absolution being invalidated is not so serious.

2. But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments (33).

- Father Alvaro Calderón

[Stone]

It has long been a tactic of the Conciliar-SSPX to label anyone who questions the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration a sedevacantist, as is commented on below. But it is not sedevacantist to point out the doubts about (all) the Novus Ordo Rites. As Fr. Scott notes (below), it places "the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy" to take a "lax probabilist" position. This is not sedevacantist, nor was it ever considered a sedevacantist mentality before the SSPX's attempts to reconcile with Modernist Rome, but rather how the Church always taught, as is demonstrated in the words in this post.


From the Catalogue of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX [all emphasis mine]:

#102: Double Compromise (Valid Episcopal Rite; Tutiorist Position Toward Sacramental Validity):

With the 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI to the papacy, the discussion regarding the validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration heated up, as Benedict XVI was the first pope to be consecrated a bishop according to the new rite. A determination of the issue had huge implications: If the form of the new rite was invalid, or even doubtful, would Benedict XVI truly be the Bishop of Rome?

Until that time, the matter regarding the validity of the form of the new rite was a disputed matter open for debate within the Society, with some of its best theologians declaring the new rite "doubtful."

One such theologian was none other than Bishop Tissier de Malleris, who, having received the book of Dr. Coomaraswamy La Drame Anglican, which declared the new rite invalid, responded in a 1998 letter:

"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”

After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.

The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.

As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.

Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais


PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please." www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/

A few years later, in 2006, a group called the International Committee Rore Sanctifica [www.rore-sanctifica.org/contact.html] based out of France conducted a study which concluded in the invalidity of the new form of episcopal consecration, and did so persuasively enough for the SSPX and its assets to spring into action, and jump to the defense -without saying so- of Pope Benedict XVI, with a flurry of studies concluding in favor of the validity of the new rite:

In 2007, former US District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott wrote an article titled "Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?," which explained to the faithful why is was essential to conditionally ordain priests (and bishops) coming to the Society from the conciliar church, who had been ordained in the new, doubtful rites:

"When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.

We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity."

Very good!

But in the same article, Fr. Scott states his belief that Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. (Avrille) had demonstrated the validity of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration (a disputed contention within Tradition and the SSPX), but nevertheless proceeds to cite another 2007 Le Chardonnet article by Fr. Nicolas Portail (SSPX), in which the latter declares:

"The authors correctly observe that this rite is the vehicle of a conception of the episcopacy according to Vatican II. It also shows that the functions that are special to the episcopal order (ordaining priests, consecrating churches, administering confirmation...) are not mentioned in the consecratory preface, in opposition to other prefaces in the Eastern Rites. In addition, the specific error of collegiality is explicitly mentioned in the consecrator’s allocution. It cannot be denied that this rite is, from a traditional perspective, weak, ambiguous, imperfect, defective, and manifestly illicit."

Still, Fr. Scott's emphasis had subtly shifted the conversation away from the validity of the form, to the validity of the intention of the consecrating bishop.

Additional articles of Fr. Celier (there he is again! Any time there is a chance to strike at Tradition, he emerges!) and Fr. Calderon supplemented those of Fr. Pierre Marie and Fr. Scott.

The validity of the form was now beyond question in SSPX circles: Only a sedevacantist (allegedly) could question it!

But as the quotation from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais demonstrates, it was not always so (and nobody ever accused Bishop Tissier of being sedevacantist).

This new position/policy was implemented to smooth the way for negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI.

In this regard, the aforementioned International Committee Rore Sanctifica seems to have made a rather prophetic response to all the pro-validity SSPX rebuttals to its study. Speaking of these allegedly validly consecrated bishops, it stated:

"One wonders whether or not one will in the near future see these individuals on the altars (tables) used by the Society. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows." www.the-pope.com/letterpmv.html

Well, that day has come:

The advent and acceptance of conciliar Bishop Huonder (Diocese of Chur, Switzerland) by the SSPX is the personification and fulfillment of that prophecy.

In short, it is a double compromise and change: For the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will conclude the new rite is certainly valid.

And for the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will no longer maintain our tutiorist position with regard to sacramental validity.

[Stone]

From the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on Anglican Orders

[Recall there are many similarities between the changes, omissions, etc. that occurred in the Anglican Rite of Orders that was condemned by Pope Leo XIII that found their way into the Novus Ordo Rite of Orders of Paul VI. It appears very, very likely then that the same course of action that the Catholic Church took in the matter of the Anglican Orders will likely be It's mandate at some future point for the Novus Ordo Orders. We know this is how the Church has acted:  "Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)" - The Catacombs]

The practice of the Holy See

Apart from exceptional circumstances, such as arose in 1896, the Holy See does not indulge in purely theoretical pronouncements on questions like that of Anglican Orders, but limits its intervention to cases of practical difficulty that are brought before it — as when persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church's altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold. And even in thus intervening the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions, but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security.

Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone.

Such a class of cases requiring its intervention arose when Queen Mary set to work to draw order out of the chaos in which her two predecessors had involved the affairs of the Church. What was to be done with those who had received Edwardine orders? The question was investigated at Rome, whither the needful information and documents were sent by [Cardinal] Pole, and, although we have no record of the discussion, it is clear from what has just been said about its known principles of action that the Holy See judged these orders to be invalid, for it sent directions to Pole to treat them as non-existent. That this was so appears

• from the letters of Julius III and Paul IV, and the sense in which they were taken by Pole, for these letters direct that all recipients of Edwardine Orders shall, if accepted for the Church's ministry, be ordained afresh;
  

• from a comparison between the Edwardine and Marian registers which reveals several double entries of names of persons who received first Edwardine and afterwards Catholic ordination;
  

• from the course taken in punishing recalcitrant Edwardine ecclesiastics, in the ceremony of whose degradation no account was taken of their Edwardine orders.
  

And the practice thus initiated during the reign of Mary was adhered to ever afterwards, when Anglican clergymen came over to the Catholic Church and sought admission into the ranks of the priesthood. [...]  Moreover, Leo XIII, in his Bull "Apostolicae Curae", speaks of many such cases as having been formally referred to the Holy See at different times, with the result that the practice of re-ordaining was invariably observed. Two of these cases were, in 1684 and 1704, the second of which attracted a certain amount of attention. It was that of John Clement Gordon, who had received all the Anglican orders, the episcopate included, by the Edwardine rite and from the hands of the prelates who derived their orders from the Anglican succession. The decision was that, if he would minister as a priest, he must receive the priesthood and all previous orders afresh. [Emphasis mine.]

[Stone]

A Note of Explanation

The study by Fr. Calderón on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations is the second or third study the theologians of the SSPX have done since 2005 on the New Rite of Orders.

One of the more well known studies on Episcopal Consecrations is that done by Fr. Pierre-Marie (of Avrille) in 2005 who concludes that the New Rite is valid, see here, under the SSPX archives/miscellaneous/sedevacantism web link. As Mr. Johnson notes in the above Change #102, the SSPX began labeling all who questioned or doubted the New Rites as sedevacantist. This is a clever accusation, one that well clouds the issue. The old-SSPX was assuredly not sedevacantist when its priests and bishops taught that the New Rite Sacraments were doubtful. This was a doubt that was expressed repeatedly over decades, by Archbishop Lefebvre himself, as well as several other priests associated with the SSPX - see here and here.

The now-Conciliar SSPX began to switch gears in the late 1990's (with GREC) and actively seek recognition from Rome, disregarding the advice and mandate of Archbishop Lefebvre not to seek an agreement until Rome once again expresses the True Catholic Faith and not the Conciliar Faith of Vatican II. Of course, once the SSPX began to seek this agreement, it was incumbent upon them to make sure their members were not offensive in any way to Rome. With the accession of Benedict XVI to the papal throne in 2005 (the same year of Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was published) the SSPX had a vested interest in not offending the new pope by holding onto their 'old' position that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was doubtful. So in this respect, Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was particularly helpful to the SSPX at the time. It placated the SSPX masses by telling them the New Rite was valid and it placated Rome by showing the Romans that they could work with the SSPX.

That is why it is interesting that Fr. Calderón studies - interestingly enough - the same Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecration Fr. Pierre-Marie does. (One is tempted to believe that if Fr. Pierre-Marie's study was absolutely conclusive as the SSPX and Fr. Pfeiffer have touted, there would be no need for the assistant Rector of the La Reja Seminary to repeat it and reexamine it!)

It has been noted that Fr. Calderón causes some confusion in his conclusion. He does not go as far as Fr. Pierre-Marie in declaring definitively that the New Rite is valid. He rather states that the New Rite is "most probably valid" (note the important inclusion of the word, "probably"). But he clarifies in the next sentence that "but we also believe that there is no certainty of its validity," in frank opposition to Fr. Pierre-Marie's conclusion.

This confusion appears again in his last two points on the practical application of his conclusion. In the first point, he seems to agree with the SSPX's recent acceptance carte blanche of clergy ordained or consecrated in the New Rite. But then in his second point, Fr. Calderón echoes the old-SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, etc. when he states in very clear and plain language:

But the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments.

Again, this is in clear opposition to Fr. Pierre-Marie's study, who concluded that:

We think that we have shown that the reasons for suspecting the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration as it was promulgated by Rome in 1968 are not at all serious. [...] However, as we remarked at the end of the main response, if 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. 

Both Fr. Calderón's study and the article by Fr. Peter Scott (see Must Priests Who Come to Tradition be Reordained?), while certainly written in a milieu that was well on its way to pursuing reconciliation and recognition from Rome, both clearly express that doubt exists in the New Rite of Orders. As Mr. Johnson points about in his Change #102, these priests are among the top theologians of the SSPX. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais also had long expressed doubts about the Episcopal Rite of Consecration as well as the Rite of Ordinations. And as was already mentioned the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, frequently repeated that there were doubts about the validity of the Conciliar Sacraments.

So what must a Catholic do when confronted with doubtful Sacraments? What does the Church teach? What does Her wisdom advise in such situations?

Well, She is consistent!:


1917 Catholic Encyclopedia: On Probabilism

• Thus ... it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means.
  

Sources of Catholic Dogma: Denzinger


[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]

• 1151 1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.
  

1907 Catholic Encyclopedia: On Anglican Orders

• Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone.
  

While Bishop Williamson is wrong on grace in the New Mass, he does advise how to address the problem of doubtful Orders the same way the Church does:

• Should priests ordained with the new rite of Ordination of 1972 be conditionally re-ordained with the old and certainly valid rite of Ordination ? Catholic doctrine on the validity of sacraments is clear, but the sacramental rites of the Newchurch seem to have been designed to lead gradually to invalidity (see EC 121 of Oct 31, 2009). The « gradually » is the problem. How far along was that gradual process in any given case ? [...] In brief, were I Pope, I think I might require that all priests or bishops ordained or consecrated with the « renewed » rites should be conditionally re-ordained or re-consecrated, not because I would believe that none of them were true priests or bishops, on the contrary, but because when it comes to the sacraments all serious doubts must be removed, and that would be the simplest way of removing all possible doubts. Newchurch rot of the sacraments could not be left hanging around. Newchurch Ordinations I - EC #356 May 10, 2014 [Note that is exactly what Pope Leo XIII ordered for the Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae so again, in this, Bp. Williamson repeats Church teaching.]
  

• ... the absolute need for certain validity in sacramental Rites applies: until the restored Magisterium of the Church pronounces that the Newrite of Consecration is valid, then to be safe, Newbishops should be reconsecrated conditionally, and Newpriests ordained only by Newbishops should be re-ordained conditionally. Valid Bishops? II - EC#450 - January 27, 2016
  

• [...] the sacraments call for absolutely certain validity, especially the consecration of bishops on whom the Church hangs. Therefore newbishops and newpriests were best conditionally re-consecrated and re-ordained. Valid Bishops? III EC#451 - March 5, 2016
  

Dear friends, let us continue to hold the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, who himself only taught as the Church teaches, and avoid doubtful Sacraments!

A simple example of the wisdom of the Church by way of analogy -

If the engineers responsible for maintaining a plane engine are divided amongst themselves (similar to Fr. Pierre-Marie vs Fr. Calderón) on whether or not the plane engine is in good working order, the safest way to approach such a divided decision is to ground the plane(!) until it is certain that the engine is in good working order! Similarly, if the theologians are not in complete agreement about the validity of something as important as the New Rite of Holy Orders, the safest position is to conditionally reordain whenever possible and when not possible, to simply avoid doubtful Orders.

[Stone]

Father Hewko, in this sermon, talks about Novus Ordo Rite Ordinations and Consecrations