On Apostles and Bishops
In one passage of his writings impugning the validity of the 1968 episcopal ordination rite promulgated by Paul VI, sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada responds to an anticipated objection.
Since everyone agrees that the sacramental form must signify the power of the order conferred, Fr. Cekada must deny that any episcopal powers are signified in Paul VI’s form. Now he has confused the whole question which he himself raised by failing to point out that Paul VI designated the entire consecratory prayer of the rite, which contains explicit references to properly episcopal powers, as the “form”; the passage invoking the “power which is from You, the governing Spirit . . .”, which Fr. Cekada maintains cannot confer episcopacy, was decreed to be essential and necessary for validity. There is more that can be said on this point and the ensuing certainty that, regardless of what one thinks of the “Spiritum principalem” phrase, anyone ordained with the entire consecratory prayer has been ordained with a valid form (see my post of June 17). But let us focus on the “Spiritum principalem” passage and consider what Fr. Cekada says about its reference to the Spirit given to the apostles who founded the Church in every place. Anticipating the objection that this reference signifies episcopal power, insofar as only a bishop has the apostolic power to found Churches (dioceses), a sedevacantist will reply that the apostles’ power to found Churches (and thereby the Church in a portion thereof) was extraordinary, and that only the Pope now founds Churches by expressly or tacitly establishing a new jurisdiction over a particular flock.
Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, it has always been normal to refer to great missionary bishops as “founders” of the Church in various lands—think of St. Patrick, St. Augustine of Canterbury and St. Boniface. The Roman Breviary itself contains the following about St. Augustine of Canterbury: “Ordained bishop by order of [Pope] Gregory, he established the see of Canterbury . . .”. Of course the power to govern the Church of Canterbury was not held by Augustine without the consent of Pope Gregory, but as I pointed out in my February 2, 2007 article on this site, the episcopal character is by its very nature an aptitude to rule the Church of God (cf. Acts of the Apostles 20:28), and therefore to found it , in hierarchical communion with the Pope, when one is the first bishop of a new territory. At least the Roman Breviary would agree in its Lectio for Augustine of Canterbury. Conclusion: there is no justification for doubting that in an ordination rite the episcopal power is signified by the invocation of the Spiritum principalem once given to the apostles who founded the Church in every place—after all, it is bishops who are traditionally considered “successors of the apostles”, and St. Pacian of Barcelona went so far as to mention that bishops were called “apostles”. As I have pointed out before, the Roman Missal speaks of the principatus of the apostles and calls a holy confessor bishop principem. If the ancient Roman Pontifical phrase summam ministerii tui univocally designates only the episcopate and not the papacy (recall that the Pope is the supreme minister of the ministers of God . . .), then Paul VI’s reference to the apostles having founded the Church through the power and governing Spirit now given to the ordinand, in an ordination rite, should be seen as also signifying the episcopal power whereby those apostles have successors. More on this in a future post.
STATEMENT BY BR. ANSGAR SANTOGROSSI, OSB
For several years stories have been appearing on the Internet about me and a woman named Cameo Garrett. They attribute words and actions to me which are either false or completely out of context. I did not lead Cameo Garrett on or exploit her in any way. She herself wrote to me and an Abbey employee at the time that I had always been good, honorable and above reproach toward her.
An alternative newspaper article published in 2002 was soon mentioned on a site with apparently sexual themes which turned up on Google. More recently, my name has appeared on the Google search engine associated with apparently inappropriate sites. An investigation by a Mount Angel Abbey IT employee disclosed that a domain associated with my name had been registered under false physical and email addresses and perhaps a false company name. Whatever the reasons may be for these sites’ connection with my name, I have nothing to do with them.
Since everyone agrees that the sacramental form must signify the power of the order conferred, Fr. Cekada must deny that any episcopal powers are signified in Paul VI’s form. Now he has confused the whole question which he himself raised by failing to point out that Paul VI designated the entire consecratory prayer of the rite, which contains explicit references to properly episcopal powers, as the “form”; the passage invoking the “power which is from You, the governing Spirit . . .”, which Fr. Cekada maintains cannot confer episcopacy, was decreed to be essential and necessary for validity. There is more that can be said on this point and the ensuing certainty that, regardless of what one thinks of the “Spiritum principalem” phrase, anyone ordained with the entire consecratory prayer has been ordained with a valid form (see my post of June 17). But let us focus on the “Spiritum principalem” passage and consider what Fr. Cekada says about its reference to the Spirit given to the apostles who founded the Church in every place. Anticipating the objection that this reference signifies episcopal power, insofar as only a bishop has the apostolic power to found Churches (dioceses), a sedevacantist will reply that the apostles’ power to found Churches (and thereby the Church in a portion thereof) was extraordinary, and that only the Pope now founds Churches by expressly or tacitly establishing a new jurisdiction over a particular flock.
Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, it has always been normal to refer to great missionary bishops as “founders” of the Church in various lands—think of St. Patrick, St. Augustine of Canterbury and St. Boniface. The Roman Breviary itself contains the following about St. Augustine of Canterbury: “Ordained bishop by order of [Pope] Gregory, he established the see of Canterbury . . .”. Of course the power to govern the Church of Canterbury was not held by Augustine without the consent of Pope Gregory, but as I pointed out in my February 2, 2007 article on this site, the episcopal character is by its very nature an aptitude to rule the Church of God (cf. Acts of the Apostles 20:28), and therefore to found it , in hierarchical communion with the Pope, when one is the first bishop of a new territory. At least the Roman Breviary would agree in its Lectio for Augustine of Canterbury. Conclusion: there is no justification for doubting that in an ordination rite the episcopal power is signified by the invocation of the Spiritum principalem once given to the apostles who founded the Church in every place—after all, it is bishops who are traditionally considered “successors of the apostles”, and St. Pacian of Barcelona went so far as to mention that bishops were called “apostles”. As I have pointed out before, the Roman Missal speaks of the principatus of the apostles and calls a holy confessor bishop principem. If the ancient Roman Pontifical phrase summam ministerii tui univocally designates only the episcopate and not the papacy (recall that the Pope is the supreme minister of the ministers of God . . .), then Paul VI’s reference to the apostles having founded the Church through the power and governing Spirit now given to the ordinand, in an ordination rite, should be seen as also signifying the episcopal power whereby those apostles have successors. More on this in a future post.
STATEMENT BY BR. ANSGAR SANTOGROSSI, OSB
For several years stories have been appearing on the Internet about me and a woman named Cameo Garrett. They attribute words and actions to me which are either false or completely out of context. I did not lead Cameo Garrett on or exploit her in any way. She herself wrote to me and an Abbey employee at the time that I had always been good, honorable and above reproach toward her.
An alternative newspaper article published in 2002 was soon mentioned on a site with apparently sexual themes which turned up on Google. More recently, my name has appeared on the Google search engine associated with apparently inappropriate sites. An investigation by a Mount Angel Abbey IT employee disclosed that a domain associated with my name had been registered under false physical and email addresses and perhaps a false company name. Whatever the reasons may be for these sites’ connection with my name, I have nothing to do with them.
Posts
