die frage nach der gültigkeit der priester - Rore Sanctifica

120
Dogma. 186 His view is that despite the fact that "most theologians, with St. Thomas, hold the
opinion that a simple priest cannot validly administer the orders of the Diaconate and Priesthood,
even with plenary power from the Pope", the more probable view is that a simple priest
can act as an extraordinary minister of the Sacrament of Order.
Unless one wishes to assume that the Popes in question were victims of the erroneous theological opinions
of their times (this does not touch the Papal infallibility, because an ex cathedra decision was not given),
one must take it that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate and
Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation. In this latter view, the requisite
power of consecration is contained in the priestly power of consecration as potestas ligata. For the valid
exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary (p. 459).
Even if it is accepted that these ordinations by abbots were valid they do not provide an argument
in favour of the validity of the orders of certain Protestant denominations conferred by
men who had received priestly ordination but had not been consecrated as bishops (see p. 73).
Given that a priest has the power to ordain, he could not do so validly without papal authorization.
It is not even the case that the powers definitely conferred by the Sacrament of Order
can always be exercised validly. The power to consecrate can always be exercised validly. An
unfrocked or excommunicated priest can celebrate a valid Mass but would sin gravely in doing
so. His Mass would be valid but illicit. But this is not the case with the power to absolve.
There are a number of restrictions regarding the use of this Sacrament, and there are certain
sins which the Pope and bishops have reserved to their own tribunals and which cannot be
absolved validly by ordinary confessors unless the penitent is in immediate danger of death.
der Sedisvakantis Rama Coomaraswamy 187 zitiert drei verschiedene päpstliche Bullen zu der Frage.
Er ist aber so inkonsequent nicht zugeben zu wollen, daß das Prinzip Ecclesia supplet hier gelten
könne. Das Suppletionsprinzip ist ja immer ein päpstliches Privileg. Wie auch immer, ich kann mir
nicht vorstellen, daß drei Päpste geirrt haben sollen. Es mag sein, daß auch im Falle der Suppletion
das gebundene Vermögen des Priester strikt an einen kanonischen Ritus gebunden bleibt, während
der Bischof auch mit einem unkanonischen, aber sakramental gültigen Ritus weihen könnte.
C'est, avant tout, la mise en lumière de trois importants documents pontificaux» :
la bulle de Boniface IX du 1 er février 1400,
celle de Martin V du 16 novembre 1427
et celle d'Innocent VIII du 9 avril 1489,
186 For a more detailed treatment of this question, see Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott, p. 369. In
unserer Ausgabe von TAN-Books, 1974, ist es die Seite 459.
187 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thomiste/nouvrite.htm