Mandatum Episcopali Consecrationis
Mandate set forth this date September 19 in the year of the Lord 2021
Abp. Brian K. Putzier (Th.D, DD) – Patriarch
In the Covid-19 pandemic timeline, all Christians worldwide found that the solace of the church came to a virtual standstill. Even going into what is now year three (3), we are still not operating as would be considered normal.
During great times of need, the early church fathers and legislators of the canons and rubrics saw a requirement to place mandated exceptions in place. The intent was to insure that the solace of the church, continued placement of clergy to serve the masses, was an ethical and moral imperative.
This organization created and verified our canons, rubrics and mandates of the church with the intent of embracing the ancient faith previous to the upheavals of the early and late 1500’s that saw a fracture in the universal church.
Our canons and rubrics are strongly dependent on those of the church from approximately 1000AD to approximate 1500AD. We consider the canons, mandates, rubrics and general theology to be more factual and closer to the intent, actions and word of our Lord, the Apostles and early church fathers. Many of our practices date back to 40AD to 300AD. With great pride we support and adhere to many canons, rubrics and practices of our Protestant brethren who saw fallibility in many of the practices that were derived from arrogance, greed and the search for power in ages past.
Within the context of the above statements, the decision to ordain or consecrate outside of the standard practices of the church is right and just in great times of need. The decision is valid, under canon law, to ordain a priest or consecrate a bishop under the premise of sub-conditione. [Tentative date may be set to make licit what appears to be illicit, albeit not required.]
Sub-conditione is the practice, of the knowledge and exception is to be made that may be considered illicit but valid, and the act may or may not be made fully licit at a later date.
Herein we list the irrefutable canons and mandates that validate the action of stated ordinations and consecrations. The information listed is based on the perceived need in the early church to continue the actions and solace of the church during times of great trials and tribulation. In this context, the Covid-19 pandemic can be placed in the same category as the plague of the middle ages, other natural disasters or the need of the early church bring the solace of the church to remote areas quickly in time of need.
We declare that other conditions of great need may exist and will be examined by this organization on a case by case basis.
We recognize that times of great need have occurred throughout church history. As seen later in this text the venerable [original] canons of 20, 953 and 2370 fully support subsequent mandates.
Under the mandate of EPISCOPALI CONSECRATIONIS:
AAS 40-5; Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, 30 Nov., 1947 Cf. Periodica, 37-9 (Hurth): Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1948, p. 4 (Pujoiras).
Source:AAS, vol. 33 (1945), n. 5, pp 131-132
“That the Bishop is the Minister of Episcopal Consecration and that for the validity of this Consecration only one Bishop is sufficient to perform the essential rites with the required mentality, it has been proven beyond all doubt by long-lasting practice”.
The subsequent perceived issue revolves around the form and matter of the acts within the ritual. The form is the word of the rite and the matter may be a physical act. It is believed that the laying on of hands is require as the matter (act) that brings into play the Holy Spirit. According the canons and mandates this is not factual within context.
As per Sacramentum Ordinis:
AAS 40-5; Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, 30 Nov., 1947 Cf. Periodica, 37-9 (Hurth): Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1948, p. 4 (Pujoiras).
Source: AAS 40-5. Volume 3, Canon Law Digest, 1954
Section 6:
In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, in conferring each Order the imposition of hands may be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained (consecrated), although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.
This statement clearly shows that the church recognized the NEED for an exception to the rule, and is above refute.
And hence these statements are absolute, unequivocal and without interpretation:
AAS 40-5; Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, 30 Nov., 1947 Cf. Periodica, 37-9 (Hurth): Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1948, p. 4 (Pujoiras).
Source: AAS 40-5. Volume 3, Canon Law Digest, 1954
Section 4:
…. that the form, and the only form, is the WORDS which determine the application of this matter (act), which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects.”
In a 1947 the Pope mandated this clarification to end all controversy or misunderstanding of the form and matter.
Note: It is the words ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’, and not the laying on of hands that calls the Spirit.
This is supported by the Roman Pontifical:
As per the Roman Pontifical section 158:159 (or p. 227:228) the Bishop lays on hands saying nothing. Then and only then he says the Prayer of Consecration. Therefore the calling of the Spirit by the words was never accompanied by the laying on of hands.
Per these mandates, it is clear that even though, the laying on of hands is traditional. ONLY the words 'Receive the Holy Spirit' are required, not the physical touch of a human. Hence, within the context of the previous mentioned consecration, the form [words] existed in a face to face act [matter], and the laying on of hands was waived temporarily via ‘sub-conditione’.
While the desire is the matter, to lay on the hands, the very word unequivocally clearly indicates the hands are secondary. Hence, it may be assumed illicit not to lay on the hands, but the act is valid ‘ unequivocally’.
Detractors claim that physical presence is required to provide the form [word] and the act [physical]. Not only do the mandates of the past make this thinking invalid, we must look upon biblical reality. The original Apostles, when gathered for Pentecost did not have a physical presence by any clergy [or the Lord] in documented fact. The spirit came to them unbidden.
This is supported by Jesus the Nazarene Essene:
... taught that Episcopal consecration can be “through the Holy Spirit alone”, with no human intermediary (Acts 1:2, 1:5 1:8 2:204, 20:28; 1 Peter 2:25; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22).
Therefore the precept that biblical text (infallible) on the subject overrides the human ecclesiastical (fallible) interpretations of subsequent councils and Papal mandates. Throughout the millennia councils, theologians and Popes have twisted text by the claims that "we believe that is what the authors and Christ really meant". This is not a position that is acceptable in the universal church, as no man can understand the mind of our Lord.
As per the Roman Pontifical section 158:159 (or p. 227:228) the Bishop lays on hands saying nothing. Then and only then he says the Prayer of Consecration. Therefore the calling of the Spirit by the words was never accompanied by the laying on of hands.
Therefore, even the usage of internet based technology may be utilized in great times of need. This is valid in the context the form [words] are valid in a face to face format. The matter [act] can be waved [hands] based on the unequivocal mandates quoted previously. This matter now becomes one of sub-conditione.
If we as Christians maintain that the bible is infallible, these supporting scriptures dictate that laying on of hands, or even ‘physical presence’ to call the power of the spirit is errant and not required [direct conflict with other passages]:
Acts 2:1-4, Acts 3:1-11, Acts 5:15-16, Acts 9:32-35, Acts 9:36-43, Acts 14:8-10, Acts 16:16-18, Acts 19:11-12, Mathew 15:21-28, John 4:46-52, Matthew 9:1-4, John 5:1-9, John 11:38-44, Matthew 9:18-22
Within context of using the internet, the internet is not evil, only humans embody that trait. If via video candidates can ‘see’ each other, that is more than occurred in many of the instances in the book of Acts and is a ‘presence’. The requirement of the laying on of hands to pass the Holy Spirit is well documented as a non-requirement.
This document is supported fully by the following: (Canon numbering has changed over time, the mandates are above refute)
Canons 20, 953 and 2370, the fourth (4th) rule of Gregory IX, Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, April 18, 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis“, 1896-97, XXIX, 659, Pius XII. "Episcopali consecrationis" and Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Rule 88 of Boniface VIII.
We list here support for the actions of the consecration in question from these listed sources that are specifically in place to support actions in times of great trial and tribulation:
Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”
These rules, according to Canon 20, “can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves”.
Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur — “It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit”.
“Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a need to SERVE God and the faithful, forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them”.
The words of the canons and mandates are recorded for all posterity, irrefutable and righteous in content, context and validity.
Final conclusions based on Canon law:
Canon 1323 n. 4 (CIC 1983): (Canon lawyer, Dr. Rudolf Kaschewsky)
''No penalty is incurred by a person forced by a necessity to act against the law." The former [1917] Code (Canon 2205, n. 2) speaks in the same sense.
Let us quote from the book on canon law written by E. Eichmann-Morsdorf:
A grave inconvenience or necessity is a situation of constraint such that, without fault, the person in difficulty is physically or morally obliged to do something against the law in order to avert the [danger] (Harm or limit church operations). ("Necessitas non habet legem─necessity has no law.")
The [danger] must be circumvented in times of need is in order to provide the solace of the church, uninterrupted, to the masses.
These are the canons, rubrics, mandates with associated form and matter that are recognized by this organization, disregarding the justification of other outside influences.
Other supporting information from the Roman Church:
Sanders states:
Holy Chrism is a mixture of olive oil and balsam, an aromatic resin. This oil is linked with the sanctification of individuals. In the Old Testament times, the priest, prophets and kings of the Jewish people were anointed. This oil is used in the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and holy orders, since they impart an indelible sacramental character. The blessing of the Holy Chrism is different from that of the other oils: Here the bishop breathes over the vessel of chrism, a gesture which indicates both the Holy Spirit coming down to consecrate this oil, and the life-giving, sanctifying nature of the character of the sacraments for which it is used. (Recall how our Lord "breathed" on the apostles on the night of Easter, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (Jn 20:22).)
Sacred Chrism is critical in the sacrament of holy orders. In the ordination rite of a priest, the bishop anoints with chrism the palms of each new priest. In the ordination rite of a bishop, the consecrating bishop anoints the head of the new bishop.
Note: Our Lord did NOT lay on hands.
According to Catholic Bishop Olmsted:
The ancient rite of the laying on of hands, whose roots reach far back into the Old Testament, was chosen by Jesus to be the way He takes possession of a priest’s entire life. By the laying on of hands, Jesus says in a symbolic but very real way, “You belong to me;” “Under my hands, you are protected from the evil one.” “Look, I have carved you in the palm of my hand.” “Remain in me as I remain in you.” “Place your hands in mine.”
With the Sacred Chrism, their hands will be anointed as ours have been, as a sign of the Holy Spirit who confers the sacred power to sanctify, to shepherd, and to teach.
Note: The words symbolic and the words confer and sanctify. No more is required to understand the implications.
Critical Note: Within the context of Sacramentun Ordinis, there is clear indication of a crippling dichotomy regarding ordination and consecration. What is the significance of the “moral contact”? This is spelled out in detail within the mandate. The context is to be construed that physical touch is not required (function) and that the words of consecration (form) are the only requirement. This indicates that the imposition of hands can be utilized on the head of the receiver, the hands may be raised above the head or no hand motions required in any case. This process of NOT laying on hands is seen elsewhere when the holy spirit is called; (i.e: Conformation at the words “Omnipotens Semiterne Deus” there is no laying on of hands). There is confusion and dissension on this topic in the mainstream churches, including the Roman Church. The discourse runs deep and is well documented.
- Reference: Fr. Connell C.SS.R.
The ordination of a priest or consecration of a bishop under the circumstances attested to in this document (or similar times of great trial), and the factual account of the need, is valid in the Apostolic Church and above contestation.
We hold great respect for all Christian organizations worldwide. We find no fault with the canons, mandates, rubrics serving the form and matter of their operation and theology. With all due respect, the reciprocal must also manifest itself.
Abp. Brian K. Putzier (Th.D, DD)
Patriarch:
United Episcopal Catholic Communion
Anglican Apostolic Church (Ordinate)
St. Genevieve Apostolic Church
St. Charles Borromeo Seminary
