STATEMENT ON THE VALIDITY OF HOLY ORDERS
In the past several months many of you have had various
questions in regard to the validity of the Orders of the Priests and Clerics
here at Mount Saint Michael’s. This statement is an attempt to answer the
questions that have been raised. We hope that the information provided will
answer any questions that you may have.
Validity of Schismatic Orders
One of the
principles upon which the sacramental theology of Holy Orders is based is that
once an order has been validly received, the recipient always retains the
powers of the Orders received although the right to exercise Orders may be
lost or suspended by the Church. The Sacrament of Holy Orders imprints an
indelible character upon the soul and it is from this indelible character that
the power of the Order flows. It has always been the teaching of the Church
that Orders received from or by schismatics are valid as long as the proper
matter, form and intention are retained. As we said above, the right to
exercise an Order may be lost or may be suspended by the Church, such as in
the case of an excommunicant or one suspended for crime; nevertheless, the
sacramental character, once validly received, can lever he removed. This is
clearly seen in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologica
(Supplement Q. 38, Art. 2), he states:
“Since the episcopal power is conferred by
consecration, it must endure forever, however much a man may sin or be cut off
from the Church.”
Again, St.
Thomas says (Supplement Q. 64, Art. 9)
“If a man be suspended by the Church or
excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring the
sacraments, but the permission to use this power.”
Modern
authors are in complete agreement with St. Thomas. Ludwig Ott, in his
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, says:
“Every validly consecrated bishop, including
heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishops can validly
dispense the Sacrament of Orders, provided he has the requisite intention, and
follows the essential external rite.”
Father M.
P. Forest, in his Why Are Anglican Orders Invalid, states:
“As regards the Sacrament of Orders, not only
has the Church never taught that Orders conferred by schisniatics or heretics
are invalid... on the contrary, She has insisted on the validity of such
Orders unless there was some other defect of an essential character.”
Finally,
Father Pohle-Preuss, in his work The Sacraments, says:
“The Church can take away what She Herself has
given, but She cannot take away the power of conferring Holy Orders.”
Clearly,
then, it is entirely possible and, in fact, is of common
occurrence, that heretics, schismatics and excommunicants can possess and
validly confer Holy Orders. The determination of the validity of such orders
would rest upon the rite employed in the ordination ceremony and the intention
of the minister and would he predicated on the assumption that the minister
himself possessed valid Apostolic succession. Having laid this groundwork, let
us proceed to a discussion of the schismatic Church of Utrecht.
The Schismatic Church of Utrecht
In
the 17th and 18th centuries, French Jansenists fled to Holland where they
found the Dutch clergy more favorable to the errors of Jansen. In the late
1600’s the vicars-apostolic of holland were cited to the Holy See for their
Jansenist leanings, and the ecclesiastical government of Holland was
transferred to the papal nuncio at Cologne. The Dutch Jansenists refused to
recognize the authority of the nuncio, and a de
facto schism ensued.
In 1718,
Dominic Varlet, a priest of the Seminary of the Foreign Missions in Paris, was
consecrated in Paris as the coadjutor to the Bishop of Babylon. In 1719, while
passing through Amsterdam on his way to the Near East, he conferred
confirmation, thereby incurring the censures of the Church. Notice of his
suspension was served upon him after his arrival in Persia, and Varlet
returned to Europe. Rather than appeal the censure in Rome, he settled in
Amsterdam and began to pontificate for the Jansenist dissidents. In October,
1742, Varlet performed the first of four episcopal consecrations which he
bestowed at the request of the Jansenists of Utrecht. Thus the consecrations
bestowed by Varlet gave valid Apostolic Succession to the schismatic Church of
Utrecht.
The Church
of Utrecht maintained the Roman Liturgy with the Tridentine Latin Mass. It
professes the Catholic creed on almost all points of faith, the major
divergence being on the Dogma of Papal Primacy and Infallibility, the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. They retain the seven sacraments and
are very similar to the Roman Catholic Church in ecclesiastical discipline.
The Church
of Utrecht has almost certainly retained valid Apostolic Succession. Catholic
writers on this subject classify them in the same category as the Eastern
Orthodox Churches. The American Ecclesiastical Review in its July 1899
issue carried an article entitled, “Recent Schismatical Movements Among
Catholics of the United States.” This article says in part:
“Concerning the Jansenist ordinations, we
remark briefly that, according to Dens, the Holy See has received priests
ordained by the Jansenist archbishop of Utrecht, without reordination , and
that Berthier says: ‘The ordination of the schismatical Greeks and of the
Jansenists is held as valid.’ The first Jansenist archbishop was consecrated
in 1773, by Varlet, bishop who had been suspended for Jansenistic errors.
Since then the succession has been preserved without a break, the Latin rite
being maintained intact.”
Tanquerey
in his Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. II (1905) in a discussion
on the invalidity of Anglican Orders, writes (page 618):
“In our days, certain Anglicans have gone to
Holland to be ordained by the Jansenist bishop, which ordination is almost
certainly valid....
In
speaking of the Old Roman Catholic Church, the Roman
Catholic Dictionary ,
by Addison Arnold, says: “They have received valid Orders.” A Catholic
Dictionary, bearing the imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes of New York, states:
“Their orders and sacraments are valid.” The Rev. Konrad Algermissen in
his work, Christian Denomination, published in 1948, hearing the
imprimatur of John Cardinal Glennon, St. Louis, Mo., (page 363) says:
“The Old Roman Catholic Church has received valid episcopal
consecration...” In reply to, an inquiry about the Old Roman Catholic
Church, the Far East magazine of June 1928, published by the St.
Columban Fathers of St. Columbans, Nebraska, published the reply that “these
Orders are valid.”
William J.
Whalen in his work, Separated Brethren (1958), in dealing with the Old
Roman Catholics, writes (page 204):
“While no official pronouncement
has been made by the Vatican concerning the validity of Old Roman Catholic
orders, we have no reason to doubt that they are valid. The Apostolic
Succession does not depend on obedience to the See of Peter but rather on the
objective line of succession from apostolic sources, the proper matter, form
and the proper in intention. This means that Old Roman Catholic priests are
probably true priests with the full powers of the priesthood, although they
would be exercising these powers unlawfully. Likewise, Old Roman Catholic
bishops are bishops in the Apostolic Succession.”
The Old Roman Catholic Church in the United
States
The
Old Roman Catholic schism spread to the United States in the late 1800’s and
the early 1900’s. Although it is still possible to trace Old Roman Catholic
Orders through several lines hack to the Church of Utrecht, we will discuss
here only that line through which Bishop Daniel Q. Brown derived his Orders.
Arnold
Harris. Matthews (1851—1919) was an Englishman raised as an Anglican. He
studied for the Anglican ministry but prior to ordination entered the Catholic
seminary of St. Peter’s at Glasgow. He was ordained to the Catholic
priesthood but left the Church in 1889. He returned to the Anglican Church
where he functioned as a curate, and while an Anglican clergyman, contracted
marriage. He was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church in 1899. In 1907,
Matthews began correspondence with the Old Roman Catholics from Utrecht and
was eventually consecrated by Archbishop Gul of Utrecht in April, 1908.
Matthews returned to England, and in 1910 consecrated two Roman Catholic
priests. This double consecration led to a rupture of relations between
Matthews and the Church of Utrecht and brought his formal excommunication by
Pope Pius X. In 1912, Matthews aiso consecrated an Austrian nobleman, the prince
De Landes-Berghes et de Rache, and then sent De Landes-Berghes to the United
States to head the Old Roman Catholic movement in this country. Matthews was
reconciled to the Church in 1915 and died four years .later.
In 1916,
De Landes-Berghes consecrated Carmel Henry Carfora (1878—1958). Carfora, a
former Roman Catholic priest, had been born, educated and ordained in Italy.
He came to the United States and worked as a missionary among the Italian
immigrants in West Virginia. He organized several “independent” parishes
after having some problems with his lawful ecclesiastical superiors . After
his consecration by De Landes-Berghes, Carfora proceeded to found the North
American Old Roman Catholic Church, which became one of the largest Old Roman
Catholic Churches in the world; by 1958, Carfora's organization numbered some
85,000 members. William J. Whalen, in his book Separated Brethren
(pages 206 and 207) writes:
“This body (the North American Old Roman
Catholic Church) acknowledges the Primacy of the successor of St. Peter but
denies his infallibility. Its statement of beliefs includes the seven
sacraments, the Mass, Transubstantiation, the veneration and invocation of the
glorious and Immaculate Mother of God, of the Angels, and the Saints, and
prayers for the dead. While advocating celibacy, it does not forbid its clergy
to marry. English is used in the
liturgy... This body seems to be
closer to Roman Catholicism than its European counterpart.”
In July of
1942, Carfora consecrated Hubert A. Rogers. Rogers functioned as Carfora’s
co-adjutor and upon the death of Carfora in 1958, Rogers became the head of
the North American Old Roman Catholic Church. In 1969, Rogers consecrated
Daniel Q. Brown to the episcopacy.
A
publication of the Old Roman Catholic diocese of Florida states:
“To correct any misinterpretation of what Old
Roman Catholics believe, our bishops and priests meeting at the Twelfth
General Council of the Old Roman Catholic Church, held at the Benedictine
Abbey of St. Paul (Roman Catholic) at Newton, New Jersey, on April 27—28,
1973, made the following unanimous declaration: ‘This General Council
reaffirms that it holds and teaches all that is held and taught by the Roman
Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals.’ Clearly, then, lest there
be any further misunderstanding, this Church holds and Teaches the Catholic
Faith without any reservations, condemning all heresies condemned by Rome, and
teaching even those doctrines that have been declared by Roman Pontiffs since
this Church has been cut off from our Holy Father, the Pope.”
Daniel Q. Brown
Daniel Q.
Brown was born and raised in the Roman Catholic Church. He became very
concerned at the doctrinal and liturgical aberrations introduced by the Second
Vatican Council and so left the Vatican II Church and became affiliated with
the North American Old Roman Catholic Church under Rogers. Brown studied at
the Old Roman Catholic seminary and was ordained and consecrated by Bishop
Rogers. For some time Brown functioned as an Old Roman Catholic bishop, but by
September of 1970 he had dropped the name “Old Roman Catholic” and had
begun referring to himself as a Roman Catholic bishop. We first made contact
with Brown in early 1970. Our community had just come under attack in the
“traditionalist” Catholic press for our rejection of the new Mass and Paul
VI. Bishop Brown wrote to us encouraging us to stand firm. Correspondence was
begun with him and we learned that his Orders came through Old Roman Catholic
lines. When we discovered that he was an Old Roman Catholic, we informed him
that we did not want anything to do with him. It was at that point that he
told us that he had gone to the Old Catholics to receive Holy Orders, but that
he had never accepted their errors and that he still considered himself to be
Catholic. In a letter dated September 17, 1970, Bishop Brown wrote:
“We have no connections or intercourse with
any other church or group and especially not with “Old” Catholics. It is
true that our Apostolic Succession was obtained from a bishop descended from
the Church of Utrecht, but this was done because we knew that there was no
question as to the validity of their Orders. As a matter of fact, the Roman
Catholic Church (pre—Vatican II, that is) has recognized the validity of
Holy Orders emanating from the Church of Utrecht. We are Roman Catholics who
feel obligated under pain of mortal sin to make sure that the Church founded
by Our Lord Jesus Christ continues to the end of time as He promised. We
believe that the “new” Church is not only heretical but is also fast
plunging into a form of Unitarianism if not worse. We question the validity
of the present Pope since many of the things he has done-—as well as
things he has left undone——are not indicative of a valid Pope. We are
not, however, anti-Papal. As a matter of fact, we commemorate the Pope
(without naming the present one) in every Mass we say. We, indeed, look
forward to the day when a valid Pope once more occupies the Chair of Peter
(and this shall come-whether in ten years or a hundred) and on that very day
we shall submit wholeheartedly to the Vicar of Christ on earth.”
This
position was reiterated by Bishop Brown in a letter of July 10, 1971:
“We are Roman Catholics, nothing more,
nothing less, who are forced by circumstances to function temporarily
without a Pope. We follow the doctrine, dogma and liturgy of the Roman
Catholic Church as She existed prior to the death of Pope Pius XII. Our Holy
Orders are descendent from the Church of Utrecht (Holland) whose Apostolic
Succession, Holy Orders and Sacraments have been recognized as valid on
numerous occasions by the Roman Catholic Church. We are not schismatics,
apostates or heretics——on the contrary, we look forward to the day on
which we can be united with the valid Holy See. We are not in communion with
any other church or denomination.”
We
corresponded and met with Bishop Brown over a period of about two years. We
assured ourselves of his orthodoxy and his good intentions and eventually he
ordained and consecrated Bishop Schuckardt in October and November 1971.
Several Objections Answered
Some
assert that even though the episcopal consecration of Bishop Schuckardt was
valid, the exercise of his sacerdotal and episcopal powers would be illicit.
This assertion is usually based on the following presumptions: (1) Bishop
Brown incurred automatic excommunication and suspension in receiving orders
illicitly in a schismatical—heretical sect. (2) Bishop Schuckardt incurred
an irregularity, from which he was not dispensed, when as a layman he
distributed Holy Communion on several occasions.
Bishop
Brown as layman did in the early 1960’s incur ipso facto excommunication by
joining the Old Roman Catholic Church. He incurred suspension and
excommunication by his reception of Holy Orders and receiving episcopal
consecration in this schismatical—heretical sect. However, prior to his
consecration of Bishop Schuckardt, he publicly renounced the errors of the Old
Roman Catholic Church and made a Profession of Faith. Church History provides
examples where schismatic and/or heretical bishops have been received into
Catholic Communion through the Profession of Faith.
“From the ancient institutions of the Fathers we have learned that those
who are baptized in the name of the Trinity, although amid heresy, whenever
they return to the Holy Church, may he recalled to the bosom of their Mother
the Church either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or
with A PROFESSION OF FAITH ALONE... without any hesitation receive all whoever
return from the perverse error of Nestorius. . . make no opposition or
difficulty in regard to their own orders.” (Letter of Pope St. Gregory, Qui
Caritati, to the bishops of Spain, Denz. 249)
These
objections are also founded on a false application of Canon Law, for Canon
Law, due to its imperfect nature, is subject to change. This change is termed
equity when applied by a superior, or epikeia, when as exception to the law is
presumed by an individual (Canon 18). St. Thomas Aquinas discusses epikeia:
“Every law is directed to the common weal of men, and derives the force
and nature of law accordingly. Hence the jurist says: ‘By no reason of law,
or favor of equity, is it allowable for us to interpret harshly and render
burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of
man.’ Now it happens that the observance of some point of law conduces to
the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, it is
very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case,
he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently... .Wherefore if a
case arises wherein the observance of a law would be hurtful to the general
welfare, it should not be observed.”
(Summa Theologica,
I—II, Q. 96, Art. 6)
“Since human actions, with which laws are concerned, are composed of
contingent singulars and are innumberable in their diversity, it was not
possible to lay down rules of law that would apply to every single case.
Legislators in framing laws attend to what commonly happens; although if the
law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and
be injurious to the common good which the law has in view.
“Epikeia does not set aside that which is just in itself but that which
is just as by law established. Nor is it oppossed to severity, which follows
the letter of the law when it ought to be followed. To follow the letter of
the law when it ought not to be followed is sinful. Hence it is written in the
Codex of Laws and Constitutions under Law V.: Without doubt he transgresses
the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the
intention of the lawgiver.”
(Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 120, Art.1)
Abbo and
Hannan in their work The Sacred Canons, pg. 39, in treating of epikeia,
state:
“Epikeia, a benign interpretation of the
human law according to that which is just and good, is said by St. Thomas to
be a virtue by which a person, though not observing the strict letter of the
law, does comply with the intention of the lawgiver. The legislator is
presumed to intend what is good. If, then, in a particular case, literal
obedience would be productive of evil or become morally impossible, the
presumption is justified that the legislator did not intend to insist upon
the enforcement of his law under those circumstances.”
Bishop
Brown invoked epikeia. If there only had been a legitimate Holy Father,
Brown’s path would have been obvious. But he knew that Paul VI was not a
pope and he knew of no bishops remaining faithful to the Church, so recourse
was impossible. Bishop Brown felt strongly the responsibility to consecrate
someone to preserve Apostolic Succession. In Brown’s certain doubt of the
relevant application of Canon Law, his suspension and any irregularities
ceased and jurisdiction was supplied by the Church to render his acts licit.
Woywood in his Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Vol. I,
pg. 10) states:
“When the existence, meaning, or extent of
the obligation of a law is doubtful it is called dubium juris... when the
majority of moralists maintain that doubtful law is not a law, and has no
force to hind in conscience. This is true if the meaning, or scope of the
law is in doubt, and the code admits that a law in a dubium juris has no
binding force.”
Speaking
of this doubt of Law, Bouscarell and Ellis in their Canon Law, a Text and a
Commentary (pg. 114) say:
“As regards the licitness of the use of
jurisdiction which is merely supplied by the Church: (a) in a positive and
probable doubt of law the use is simply licit...”
Prior to
Bishop Schuckardt’s ordination and consecration by Bishop Brown, several
priests had reserved the Blessed Sacrament here on condition that Our Lord
should be rendered due homage by the Community and that the Sacred Species
should be consumed before they could undergo corruption. Again in this
instance the principle of epikeia was invoked to make it possible for Holy
Communion to he taken to the sick and given to members of the religious
Congregation when priests were not present. Certainly such an action was not
unprecedented in Church History. In the times of persecution such activity was
common, as can be seen from the histories of the Roman persecutions and the
persecution of the Church in France during the Reign of Terror. The
persecution of the Church in Mexico in the early 1900’s furnishes us with
yet another example. Pope Pius XI in 1927 granted the faithful in Mexico:
“In view of peculiar and extraordinary circumstances whenever no
suitable and ready priest, deacon, subdeacon, or cleric can be had to
administer Holy Viaticum to the sick or dying, a pious layman... may carry the
Sacred Species in a vessel, which is blessed or to be blessed; and the sick
person may receive the Sacred Species with his own hands.., or they (may be)
administered by the man who carried them.” (Canon Law Digest Vol. II,
pg.26 ff)
Not only
are these actions of the then Brother Francis defensible, in light of
precedents in Church History, but because of the extraordinary circumstances
no irregularities would have been incurred
“The irregularities from delinquency are unlawful exercise of the
powers of Major Orders by a cleric or layman.”
(Moral Theology, McHugh Callan Vol. II, pg. 747)
“If the doubt is of law, there is no
irregularity.”
(Moral Theology,
Jone-Adelman, pg. 472)
“A law ceases to bind...if the law has become
unreasonable.”
(Canon 20)
Traditional
Catholics must remember that many of the 2414 canons in the Code of Canon Law
are not strictly applicable in the circumstances that we find ourselves in
today. The Church today is certainly in a different position than it was in
1958 and therefore the laws must be interpreted in view of the nature of the
times and in light of previous precedents in Church History. That part of
Canon Law which is applicable must be applied and that part of Canon Law whose
application would he harmful, impossible, useless or unreasonable, in the
present circumstances, ought not be applied. For as St. Thomas says:
“To follow the letter of the law when it ought not to be followed is
sinful”
