There was an interesting article I read by an Eastern Rite Catholic, who was schooled in Thomism, with respect to the ordinations done by Abp Milingo, the African Bishop was involved with the charismatic movement and ultimately married one of the Moonies. When Milingo performed those ordinations, Rome immediately said they were invalid. This Priest, who blogs at “Priestly Puglist” (I think) was shocked. From the Thomistic theological view (St. Thomas Aquinas for our non-Catholic friends), as long as the rite was followed and proper matter used (oil used) and man was being ordained, the ordinations were “valid” but “illicit”. So, he asked some friends of his in Rome and again they stated, no the ordinations were invalid.
Pope Benedict, who is fundamentally an Augustinian in his theologial world view, and thus as this writer puts it, he is an Augustinian in conversation with Aquinas, used what was called the “Bound Power Doctrine”, which is found in ST. Augustine’s writings on eccesiology. From this point of view, a Bishop is ordained for a purpose, and that purpose is for the good of the Church to build up the body of CHrist. Under this view, a Bishop can’t ordain someone against the “doctrine of Rome”, since there has never been a definition of what being raised the level of Bishop means. I was shocked when I read this, but as this Eastern Rite Catholic Priest points out, the Council of Trent states that a Bishop is consecrated. Vatican II used the term “a Bishop if ordained”. However, neither Council defined what those terms mean, and thus since a COuncil can’t directly contradict what a previous COuncil stated, exactly what being “consecrated as Bishop” and “ordained a Bishop” means has “never been fully defined by ROme”
So where does this leave us. A Bishop is consecrated and ordained for the purpose of ministry to the Church and service to the Body of Christ. It is not and ends to itself. Thus, nothing “ontologically” changes when a priest is ordained a Bishop. He is still a priest who has been given authority by the Church to use the fullness of the “priestly ministry that Christ gave him at his ordination”. So, there is nothing new added as the sacrament was conferred at priestly ordination, no new sacrament was conferred at a Bishop consecration/ordination.
In summary, what does this all mean. Well, I think it means 1) A Bishop, when ordained, is not “ontologically” different from when he was ordained a priest, 2) A Bishop who acts in direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine, even if he follows the Rite, may not be even by validly ordaining (e.g., the case of Milingo). In closing, it appears that a Bishop’s authority to ordain priests and confirm can in fact be taken away by the Church and even if that Bishop were to go into schism, the sacraments of priestly ordination, thus Eucharistic celebrations from said priests would “not be valid”. Of course, Baptisms would still since that, along with Holy Matrimony/Marriage are the 2 Sacraments that the Catholic Church sees as being valid among the Proestant confessions not in full Communion with Rome.
I encourage others to read this Eastern Catholic Priest’s blog at “Priestly Puglist” and let me know what you think. I found the entire discussion fascinating.
“Under this view, a Bishop can’t ordain someone against the ‘doctrine of Rome’,...”
This isn't as strange as it sounds, not even to Scholastic ears.
Archbishop Milingo, in accepting the authority of the Rev. Moon, became an apostate, as he more or less abandoned the communion of the Church for a non-Christian, pagan religion.
Were he to try to ordain priests or to consecrate bishops, he would no longer be intending to do what the Church does, which is to ordain priests who, in part, will offer the sacrifice of the Mass, and provide absolution to penitent sinners. Once you move over to something like the Unification Church, the very doctrines of the Mass and absolution of sin lose all meaning.
Thus, it isn't that he no longer has the intrinsic capacity to ordain priests or consecrate bishops, but rather that he can no longer intend what the Church does in the sacrament of Holy Orders, because the sacraments are meaningless in his new religious beliefs.
At least, that's how it looks to me.
sitetest
That’s very interesting and it certainly does sound like a solution. It would certainly support the invalidity of Anglican orders, for example.
Another interesting aspect is that even in the case of sacraments (baptism and marriage) that can validly be performed by lay people and Protestants, it is necessary to intend to do what the Church does. Thus, for example, Mormon baptisms are invalid because they have an entirely different belief system, they are not Trinitarian Christians, and they do not intend to do what the Church does.
I’m going off to read the Priestly Pugilist now...thanks!