It's not (necessarily) a heresy to reject the making of a bishop as a participation in Holy Orders

Twice a year (Labor Day and Memorial Day) I enjoy a picnic provided by one of my former seminary professors, along with many of his former students, mostly from classes that came years after me. During that last one, I toasted my old teacher in gratitude for the fact that he had always maintained, in my defense, that one can still believe in the Bound Powers theory, in spite of the language used in Vatican II. He smirked, and asked the younger priests there if they had ever heard of the Bound Powers theory; and no one raised his hand. A dark day, indeed.

Popes have routinely used the weekly General Audience to focus on some kind of thematic series. John Paul II, having been pope some twenty years, ran through several themes: the Epistles of St. Paul, the theology of the body, etc. Pope Benedict’s first “flight” of General Audience themes has been a series on the Fathers of the Church. Typically, he chose one Father per week, with a few of the more important ones receiving two weeks of attention; but for his theological patron, Augustine of Hippo (that’s pronounced “aw-GUS-tin”, not “AW-gus-teen”, by the way), he devoted six whole meditations. A friend of mine and I decided to reproduce them in our respective parish bulletins week by week. Whether anyone read them, your guess is as good as mine; but, they were there in any case.

I was trained in a Roman Catholic seminary back when Thomas Aquinas was the soup of the day; so, when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, I suffered just a mild case of perturbation, along with the rest of the dwindling number of unreconstructed Thomists around the Church. After all, we had suffered nervously in silence for twenty years with the specter of John Paul II’s modified phenomenology hanging over the theology of the Church like a wrecking ball held by a thread, waiting for just that one little, teensy-weensy, unintelligible Husserlite vagary about perception to be uttered in a careless moment, sending the whole thing crashing down to destroy the settled order of nature.

We Thomists, understand, are an odd lot to the modern mind. I remember, as a seminarian in New York, visiting one of my professors in his parish in Manhattan—he was a Dominican, like Thomas—when he told me the story of the Franciscan priest who had filled in for him when he was out of town: the Friar Minor complained he couldn’t sleep, saying that he “could sense the realism closing in around him.” Philosophically, a Thomist is an Aristotelian, and his approach to the world around him is decidedly “WYSIWYG” (What You See Is What You Get). Things are what they are all on their own; they are not changed or altered by what you think of them or how you perceive them; and, if you perceive them differently than what they are in themselves, then you either need therapy or glasses.

But it isn’t Aristotle’s philosophy which binds us Thomists together in our shrinking fraternity; it’s his theology, particularly his sacramental theology, which draws a lot from his philosophy—and it’s a lot different from Augustine’s; and Pope Benedict has already begun to chip away at it.

Case in point: the case of the episcopal consecrations of the excommunicated Emmanuel Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia, who married a Korean woman in a mass wedding conducted by the Rev. Moon, and who has started his own schismatic “Church” to champion the cause of married Roman Catholic priests. Not too long ago, Milingo consecrated (or ordained, but we’ll get to that later) a few “bishops” for his “Church.” The Holy See immediately responded that the consecrations (or ordinations) were invalid. “Well, that’s a mistake,” said the secret, underground newsletter for unreconstructed Thomists. Illicit they certainly are, but not invalid. Milingo, nutty as he is, is still a validly ordained priest and bishop even if excommunicated, and his sacramental actions are still valid in spite of his unworthiness to perform them.

“Not so,” quipped the Holy See, having located the address of the windowless basement where our newsletter is published. “His actions are extra ecclesia (outside the Church), and are therefore invalid. Kaboom!!! And with that, the unreconstructed Thomists went into hiding. I may be the first to raise my head out of my hole and scream, in my best Nancy Kerrigan voice, “Why? Why?”

You see, on planet Thomas, so long as you have (1) a validly ordained minister, (2) the correct formula, (3) the proper matter as instituted by Christ, and (4) the deliberate intention to perform the act intended by the Church in this action, your sacrament is valid. It may be illicit (illegal) for a variety of reasons, and its practical effects may be suppressed by the authority of the Church antecedently; but the sacramental effects are there nonetheless. On planet Augustine, you can be four for four as far as the conditions for a valid sacrament are concerned; but if you don’t have the permission of someone whose permission the Church has declared necessary, it’s all just dress-up and make-believe. When Marcel Lafebre consecrated four bishops for his ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X some years ago, that was declared illicit; and it bought him an automatic excommunication since he did it without a papal mandate; but no one said those bishops were not real bishops—they are recognized as such today. The only difference, I can see, is who was pope in each instance.

Now, to be fair, the Catholic Church has never followed the Thomistic understanding exclusively. In both the sacraments of Confession and Holy Matrimony it has always been understood that proper jurisdiction is necessary for the validity of the sacrament in question. For example, if a priest is filling in for another in a parish not his own, and has no direct permission from either the bishop or the pastor to perform a wedding there, any weddings he may perform would be invalid, and those couples would not, in fact, be married. But to have the previous understanding thrown out in this cavalier way...well, it’s like taking your girl to the door after your fifth date which you think went great, and being told, “Why can’t we just be friends?”

Before continuing, I should like to mention that I do not, in fact, disagree with the Augustinian understanding of things; nor do I actually worry about Pope Benedict’s theology, assuming that one could actually be that conceited. But, I am an unreconstructed Thomist, and therefore like to ask questions. Thomas’ whole philosophical and theological method was based on the asking of questions, the giving of answers, the objecting to those answers (with relevant examples), and the answering of the objections (with even more relevant examples). Thomas used to do it all by himself; that’s how he wrote his books. So, to an unreconstructed Thomist, asking a question does not imply disagreement; it’s just how our brains work. To a subjectivist like, say, a Kantian or a Sartist or a follower of Husserl or Hegal or some other kind of epistemologically confused individual, asking a question always implies disagreement, if not open hostility.

As a proof of my orthodoxy and devotion to the Holy Father (which, by the way, has never been questioned on land or sea), allow me to offer the following. It concerns a different—but related—question to which I previously alluded, and which may, in fact, help to clarify for myself the previous question (stop and think before you answer):

Don’t answer. Just think. ... Are you thinking? ... Good. I will bet you dinner at Bravo (a restaurant that St. Thomas would have loved had it existed in the early middle ages) that your snap answer was, “Yes. It’s a participation in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Three degrees: bishop, priest and deacon.” Now, grab hold of your calimari, because I think you’re wrong.

I’ll bet you that last slice of brucietto that you’re thinking of Vatican II, aren’t you? Go ahead, admit it. All over the place Vatican II talks about the “ordination” of a bishop. Here’s where I swirl a mouthful of capers and let them roll down my throat with just enough airflow to grunt out, “But Trent called it a consecration, not an ordination; and one Ecumenical Council can’t cancel out a point of dogma defined by another, or else the Holy Spirit is suffering serious emotional problems.” This is where you pitch forward in a sudden spasm and spit a mouth-full of Chianti all over the table. Not to worry. Over expressio and canoli I will soothe your nerves with a little history (a shot of Compari wouldn’t hurt, either).

Both councils, Trent and Vatican II, debated at length the question of whether the making of a bishop was a participation in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Both councils taught something particular about it. But the fathers of neither council had the onions (or should we say stugots?) to actually define anything about it. When speaking of the making of a bishop, Trent refers to it as a “consecration”; when speaking of the same thing, Vatican II uses the word “ordination”; but at no point does either council actually decree anything about it. Look it up. I kid you not.

Let’s apply St. Thomas’ question and answer approach to the problem. To “consecrate” a bishop means exactly what it means to consecrate anything else: you bless him and set him aside for special duties, but nothing about him has ontologically changed. To “ordain” a bishop means to give him a higher degree of participation (the highest, in fact) in that sacrament by which a man is raised to the ministerial priesthood of Jesus Christ, thus altering his ontological nature with an indelible mark. The difference is legion for this reason: If a bishop is not ordained but merely consecrated, then the powers of the episcopacy—to ordain, for example—must, therefore, be present in every priest. But we know that a priest who is not a bishop cannot ordain; should he attempt it, the ordination would be invalid and not merely illicit, as the Church has explained on numerous occasions. Therefore, the making of a bishop must be a sacrament of some sort.

But, I object (to myself—it’s just something us Thomists do): for centuries the Church did not have this understanding, as can be demonstrated by this, that, these, those over there, etc., etc. (which I say as I produce handfuls of ancient, crumbling parchments I’ve stolen from the Vatican Library, hidden in my socks). Besides, I’m an Eastern Catholic priest (which I am, by the way); and in our tradition—which is a lot older than yours, nyah nyah—we’ve never referred to the making of a bishop as anything but a consecration. So, there!

What I’m actually arguing with myself about is an old theory, not taught in the seminary anymore, but which old timers like myself will recognize as “The Bound Powers Theory”, which states, basically, this: Ordination to the Holy Priesthood is, in fact, participation in the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders; but certain powers bestowed in that ordination are “held bound” by the manifest authority of the Church acting in the name of Christ, in such wise that any attempt to exercise those powers extra ecclesia, outside the manifest authority of the Church, would be invalid, not just illidit. This theory, of course, was rampant in the Church long before the time of St. Thomas, which is why the practice of the Eastern Churches reflects it.¹ Guess where it comes from. Go ahead, guess....

St. Augustine! You win a cookie. That’s right, NASCAR fans. And with his pit boss, Benedict XVI, keeping the tires inflated after all these centuries, Augustine is making quite a comeback.

What consequences Benedict’s influence will have on the sacramental theology of the Church, only time will tell. A lot, I suppose, will be determined by how long he lives. If he lives long enough, the changes could be very dramatic indeed; for example, if the making of a bishop is just a consecration via the Bound Powers Theory, then the “unmaking” of a bishop is just as easy. And we don't mean just suspending his faculties, either. That thought should cause not a few bad toupees to tremble, don’t ya think?²

This is a very interesting post, but as you know many of the Theological ideas presented in it are very complex, so forgive me if I at any point misinterpret your post in my thoughts concerning your article.

The Council of Trent mentions the following traditional major and minor orders when discussing the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. It mentions the following offices "Sacerdos", Diaconate,Subdiaconate, Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Porter). This can be seen in Session 23 of the Council of Trent Chapter 2. The Latin and English Translation of this part of the Council read as follows:

Nam non solum de sacerdotibus, sed et de Diaconis sacrae literae apertam mentionem faciunt; et quae maxime in illorum ordinatione attendenda sunt, gravissimis verbis docent; et ab ipso Ecclesiae initio sequentium Ordinum nomina, at que uniuscujusque eorum propria ministeria, Subdiaconi scilicet, Acolyti, Exorcistae, lectoris et Ostiarii, in usu fuisse cognoscuntur, quamvis non pari gradu. Nam Subdiaconatus ad majores ordines a Patribus et sacris Conciliis refertur, in quibus et de aliis inferiroribus frequentissime legimus.

For the Sacred Scriptures mention unmistakably not only the priests but also the deacons,[3] and teach in the most definite words what is especially to be observed in their ordination; and from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely, those of the sub-deacon, acolyte, exorcist, rector and porter, though these were not of equal rank; for the sub-diaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and holy councils,[4] in which we also read very often of other inferior orders.[5]

IIRC, it is interesting to note that the actual text of the Council never explicitly defines the number of major and minor Orders to seven nor even says that the list itself is an exhaustive list of all of the orders. As far as I can tell, the decree also isn't particularly clear about which Orders confer an indelible character upon the soul....with the exception of those who receive ordination to be a "sacerdos." These people are emphatically described as receiving an indelible character in Chapter IV of Session 23 of Trent.

One point of confusion is that there are several different words being used in the Latin of the Council's decrees that are all translated as Priest in English. The word "sacerdos" can refer to both bishops and priests and refers to a type of office which explicitly offers sacrifices. The other word for what we today think of as a priest is "presbyterus" and it means literally means an "elder" though we usually translate it as "priest" in English today. The word presbyter IMO seems to generally seems to refer to a presiding figure not necessarily involved in the capacity of offering sacrifice, though a presbyter was always ordained to be a sacerdos at the time of his ordination to the order of the presbyterate. Thus a Presbyter and a bishop can both act as a Sacerdos. This combined with the Catholic Church's practice of allowing a bishop to delegate a priest the ability to confer sacraments usually reserved for the bishop also seems to be a strong support in favor of the Bound Powers Theory.

However, the Decrees of the Council of Trent also offer arguments that seem to undermine the Bound Powers Theory. For instance, since the word Sacerdos means one who offers sacrifice, the use of this word tells us only that a sacerdos is a person authorized to offer the sacrifice of the mass, but it tells us nothing about whether all sacerdotes have a fullness of Sacramental power to confer ALL of the Sacraments validly without a Bishop. The right to confer some sacraments are not conferred when a presbyter is ordained a sacerdos.... For instance, sacraments such as Holy Orders as far as I am aware are never allowed to be delegated to a non-bishop, and thus I think it is safe to say that Sacerdotes are not capable of Ordaining without a bishop. In the old pre-1969 Latin ordination of priests and bishops, the powers conferred by Holy Orders were made clear as to what priests could do. (The powers conferred were actually explicitly listed in the rite of ordination. The current post-1969 Rite of Ordination in the Latin Church is very vague on this point.) In any case, the Older form of ordination for presbyters in the Latin Church does not seem to have given a fullness of authority to the presbyters. Bishops are also distinguished in an order of their own in Trent when it calls the bishops another "grade" of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. In Chapter IV of Session 23 it says:

praeter caeteros Ecclesiasticos gradus, Episcopos, qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt, ad hunc hierarchicum Ordinem praecipue pertinere, et positos, sicut idem Apostolus ait, a Spiritu S. regere Ecclesiam Dei: eosque presbyteris superiores esse; ac Sacramentum Confirmationis conferre; ministros Ecclesiae ordinare; atque alia pleraque peragere ipsos posse; quarum functionum potestatem reliqui inferioris Ordinis nullam habent.

Wherefore, the holy council declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, principally belong to this hierarchical order, and have been placed, as the same Apostle says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God;[11] that they are superior to priests, administer the sacrament of confirmation,[12] ordain ministers of the Church, and can perform many other functions over which those of an inferior order have no power.

Another important part fact to notice from the above quotation is the last sentence says that bishops are superior to priests in power and that there are some powers over which the orders inferior to the bishops have no power. Here the council seems to directly imply that the bishops are indeed an "order" and there are orders inferior to them.

Thus the bishops are strongly implied to be an "order" in the Church Hierarchy. I would thus be strongly inclined to say that bishops do indeed receive a sacrament when they are consecrated a bishop. This fact is also strongly supported by Trent which says:

Cum Scripturae testimonio, Apostolica traditione, et Patrum unaimi consensu perspicuum sit, per sacram ordinationem, quae verbis, et fignis exteriroribus perficitur, gratiam conferri; dubitare nemo debet, Ordinem esse vere et proprie unum ex septem sanctae Ecclesiae Sacramentis: inquit enim Apostolus; Admoneo te, ut resuscites gratiam Dei, quae est in te, per impositionem manuum mearum, non enim dedit nobis Deus spiritum timoris, sed virtutis, et dilectionis, et sobrietatis.

Since from the testimony of Scripture, Apostolic tradition and the unanimous agreement of the Fathers it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the Apostle says:

It seems to me that me that episcopal would almost certainly be a sacrament. The council calls the elevation of a bishop an "ordination" (i.e. "in ordinatione episcoporum".) Also When a priest is consecrated a bishop, hands are imposed and authority and grace is granted. There are outward signs and symbols that demonstrate that grace is being conferred on the bishop. The consecration of a bishop is thus the outward sign of the conferral of Grace and by definition a Sacrament.

The Catholic Church also seems to infallibly declare that the episcopate is a degree of Holy Orders when it says the following in Canon VI of Session 23 of the Council of Trent:

Canon VI Si quis dixerit, in Ecclesia Catholica non esse hierarchiam divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, Presbyteris, et ministris; anathema sit.

Canon 6. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not instituted a hierarchy by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, priests and ministers, let him be anathema.

Finally, Canon 7 also infallibly says that the power held by bishops is not common to priests. This canon declares:

Canon VII: Si quis dixerit, Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi, a et ordinandi; vel eam, quam habent, illis esse cum Presbyteris communem; vel Ordines ab ipsis collatos sine populi, vel potestatis saecularis consensu, aut vocatione, irritos esse, aut eos, qui nec ab ecclesiastica et canonica potestate rite ordinati, nec missi sunt, sed aliunde veniunt, legitimos esse verbi et Sacramentorum ministros; anathema sit.

Canon 7. If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power to confirm and ordain, or that the power which they have is common to them and to priests, or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema.

Let me know what you think. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Let me know what you think. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.

I'll try as best I can.

Exactly; and that was part of the point of my article. Both councils (Trent and Vatican II) spoke as if these matter had already been settled, but didn't bother to mention who settled them and when. Certainly, neither council took it upon itself to do so, as your citation from Trent indicates. That's why I'm maintaining that these matters are still open for debate.

In the old pre-1969 Latin ordination of priests and bishops, the powers conferred by Holy Orders were made clear as to what priests could do. (The powers conferred were actually explicitly listed in the rite of ordination. The current post-1969 Rite of Ordination in the Latin Church is very vague on this point.) In any case, the Older form of ordination for presbyters in the Latin Church does not seem to have given a fullness of authority to the presbyters. Bishops are also distinguished in an order of their own in Trent when it calls the bishops another "grade" of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

Again, you are correct; but I'm not sure I would ascribe the kind of clarity to it that you are. While the old ordination rite lists what the priest can do (and, by ommission, what he can't, though that may be an assumption), it doesn't tell us why. In other words, does the ordination rite for a priest not mention the power to ordain because that power is not being confered, or because that power, present in the sacrament per se is being "held bound", to be released (not confered) should the man be raised to the episcopate? You are also correct that, generally speaking, the new rite is much less clear; but, at the same time, I have some aversion to using a liturgical rite to define dogma. Liturgy should reflect the teaching of the Church; but there is no guarantee that it does so, as liturgical rites are not dogmatically declaritive in themselves. For example, the new rite for the "ordination" of a bishop contains the words, "Raise this, your son, to the fullness of the priesthood." Obviously, as a proponent of the Bound Powers Theory, I'm not accepting that at face value. And, as you mention, we don't know exactly what is meant by the word "grade". Does it refer to a fuller participation in the sacrament, or does it simply refer to a "rank" which has nothing to do with a sacrament? A perusal of the relatio of the Council of Trent would seem to indicate that, not only were the council fathers not sure themselves, but suggests that they deliberately decided not to be clearer on the matter because they did not want to teach definitively on this issue. In other words, neither council wanted to "man up" and actually define it one way of the other. Each choose a "point of view" so to speak, and ran with it, teaching it as if it had already be settled, but with full knowledge that it, in fact, was not settled.

This citation you give from Trent is, of course, the most convincing that I'm wrong; particularly the last sentence, which seems to indicate that those of inferior rank have "no power." That would seem to settle it; but, as one of my seminary professors said, "quarum functionum potestatem reliqui inferioris Ordinis nullam habent", is not necessarily immune to interpretation. For example, if one subscribes to the Bound Powers Theory, then the ability of the Magisterium to "hold bound" powers sacramentally confered would fit into this language. Remember that the Bound Powers Theory would still maintain that a priest who attempts to ordain without authorization does so invalidly, not just illicitly. Likewise, notice on the citation from Trent that it includes in the "powers" not available to those of inferior rank, it mentions Confirmation; yet, do we not know that Confirmation can be administered by any priest to a soul in danger of death, or to anyone with the delegation of the bishop? In the Eastern Church in which I serve, this sacrament is routinely given to all children at their baptism. So, whatever Trent means by "power", I would tend to say that it doesn't mean that the sacramental power has not been confered, but that it is forbidden, or, in the case of ordination, actually held bound as pertains even to validity.

This would seem to seal the deal, as it were; however, when this matter was raised in the seminary, it was pointed out that the emphatic language of the Canons was in response to a state of confussion in the Church (not unlike today), in which everyone thought everything was up for grabs. As my professor said, "The fact that Trent says you're anathema for saying it, doesn't necessary mean you're wrong; just that you're anathema."

So, I would still tend to agree with him that one is still free to accept either point of view until such time as someone actually defines the issue in an unambiguous way. Of course, I may be totally washed up about this issue; but I thought it was worth exploring in light of the Holy Father's devotion to St. Augustine. I know this doesn't answer all the points you made; but I hope it's enough to let you know I appreciate the discussion.

I used the word "consecration" because that's the term the Orthodox Church uses and there it is considered a Mystery or Sacrament if you will.

That's what I thought. But I would want you to check with someone in authority in your Church before you declare without hesitation that your Church definitely views episcopal consecration as a participation in Holy Orders. Some Orthodox Churches do, others do not. Most are in the same situation as Catholicism in this regard: namely, that they simply don't know for sure.

This is the tedious Catholic legalism that Orthodox theologians and representatives attending ecumenical gatherings with Catholics so often criticize.

Without wanting to seem patronizing, that might be the general sense of many (though not all) Orthodox laity; but these matters are often discussed in Orthodox theological circles whether you like it or not, depending on the jurisdiction. Nor were these kinds of discussions unknown in the pre-schismatic Church, when East and West were still in communion. I would be careful about adopting an anti-intellectual attitude, which I've seen some Orthodox (and Catholic) lay people fall back on when they simply don't want to engage an issue seriously. There's a great temptation, when one doesn't have enough theological or historical background, to simply say that it's all sophistry.

"Bound Powers theory"? It sounds like something that would spring forth from a Harvard Con Law professor.

Regardless of how it sounds, it's just a way of identifying an idea which has its origins in the Fathers of the Church, and which has been bounced around ever since ... accepted by almost everyone, then rejected by almost everyone ... now being considered again. Again, don't fall into the trap of believing that thinking is somehow irreverent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.