Invalidating Form: Why the 1552–59 Anglican Ordinals Fail to Make Priests or Bishops.

As my readers know, I am critical of the valid ordination of Anglican priests. I wrote a blog post defending my position, which you can find in the description bar below. I even engaged in a debate with James, who is a friend of mine, and an Anglican priest. But in the past my arguments have always hinged on both form intent, which is what the main criticism of the 1662 ordinals were in Pope Leo XIII’s bull, Apostolicae Curae. However, right now I will be touching on a critique purely concerned with the form of the 1552–1559 ordinals.

The Main Argument

As we know, ordinals provide the rituals for consecrating priests and bishops. If they are invalid, then the person being ordained is no more a priest or bishop than when they went in. According to Pope Leo XIII, these ordinals were defective because while “‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ certainly do[es] not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or — and I emphasize that “or” for latter — its grace and power, which is chiefly the power ‘of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord’”[1]

The full form of the ordination, which are the words applied with the matter (in this case the laying of hands), is the following for the ordination of a bishop (with modern spelling),

Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposition of hands: for god hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.[2]

And here is the form for a priest,

Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou does forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou does retain, they are retained: and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of god, and of his holy Sacraments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.[3]

Neither of these forms contain what Pope Leo XIII claims is necessary for a valid form of ordination. They need to either “definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood [or bishop]” or “its grace and power, …of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord’”. From this we get the basic argument. Which follows,

P1. A proper form must contain words which signify “definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood [or bishop]” or “its grace and power, …of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord [or, in the case of the episcopate, ordaining bishops and priests]’”

P2. The form for the 1552–9 ordinals lack either definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood [or bishop]” or “its grace and power, …of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord [or, in the case of the episcopate, ordaining bishops and priests]’”

C1. The 1552–9 ordinal lacks a proper form.

The argument is a proper disjunctive syllogism, and it is a valid argument. However, is it sound? I will provide a justification for each premise.

The Minor Premise — The Priesthood.

What does it take for an ordinal to express either the order of the office of priest or bishop — or at the very least their respective grace and power? Do the words “priest” or “bishop”, or even their respective powers need to be explicitly said and understood by anyone? Not exactly. To quote Pope Pius XII, who formalized the proper requirements,

the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy…the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects — namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit — and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense[4]

To break it down, the form must do three things. It must,

1. Contain words that univocally signify the sacramental effect — that someone now has the power of the order.

2. Contain words that univocally signify the grace of the Holy Spirit.

3. Contain words that are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.

First, let us begin by reviewing both rites. The rite of the priest reads the following,

Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou does forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou does retain, they are retained: and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy Sacraments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The strongest argument one can make is that the words signify the sacramental effect are there, after all, what else could it mean to be a “dispenser…of his Holy Sacraments”? There are two issues. The first is that the word must be univocal a “generic term, or a term applicable in the same sense to all the species it embraces.”[5] “Dispenser” is used in relation to both preaching sacred scripture, and the Holy Sacraments, which of course are not the same thing.

As a note, so as to avoid confusion, univocal does not mean literal, univocal just means that the word in its context signifies one thing. For instance, when Jesus says, “I am the door”, while he isn’t a literal door, his words only signify one thing, that he stands in the sole means of salvation (John 10:9).

If the issue were a mere matter of an ambiguity due to lack of univocity, I would say this objection would amount to nothing more than a minor technicality that I would not blame the Anglican for rejecting (even if the Catholic is bound to it by authority). This brings us to our second issue.

Unfortunately, Michael T. Davies makes a compelling case that the nature of these words given their common usage and in the development of the Protestant Reformation show the issue is not one of ambiguity, and as much as I do not like the man, he has a strong point.[6] He argues that the words “a faithful dispenser of the word of god, and of his holy Sacraments” originate from a Protestant anti-sacerdotalism. You can find it in three of the following sources.

First in John Calvin who wrote of the presbyterate,

But while this honour is attributed to the Christian ministry, Popish priests may not plume themselves upon it. Christ ordered dispensers of his gospel and his sacred mysteries to be ordained, not sacrificers to be inaugurated, and his command was to preach the gospel and feed the flock, not to immolate victims.[7]

The Calvinists were not the only ones who used this terminology, it was also common among the Lutherans. Second, in the Augsburg Confession we read,

That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake.[8]

While this might not seem antithetical to a sacrificing priesthood, Philipp Melanchthon makes it clear in his Apology of the Confession, it means just that in direct contrast to the Catholic Church.

The adversaries [Catholics] understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word, and administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand it as referring to sacrifice, as though in the New Testament there ought to be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people, and merit the remission of sins for others.[9]

Given that the Via Media was itself a reference to the Anglican Church’s theology as a medium between the extremes of Lutheranism and the Reformed Church[10], this leaves the meanings of the words with little place to go. So common were these words in opposition to Catholic teaching that we turn to the third historical source Davies gives us, the Council of Trent, which itself issued the following condemnation,

If any one saith, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or, that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; or, that it is only a kind of rite for choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.[11]

Given the common usage of these terms as exclusive of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, not only is the lack of univocity of the word “dispense” confounding but is antithetical to the nature of the order of the priesthood. To say otherwise is to ignore Reformation history.

Not to mention it is to ignore Thomas Cranmer himself who, four years before he wrote the ordinal also wrote,

Therefore Christ made no such difference between the priest and the layman, that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the layman, and eat the Lord’s Supper from him all alone, and distribute and apply it as him liketh. Christ made no such difference ; but the difference that is between the priest and the layman in this matter, is only in the ministration; that the priest, as a common minister of the church, doth minister and distribute the Lord’s Supper unto other, and other receive it at his hands. But the very supper itself was by Christ instituted and given to the whole church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be delivered to all that would duly ask it.

As in a prince’s house the officers and ministers prepare the table, and yet other, as well as they, eat the meat and drink the drink : so do the priests and ministers prepare the Lord’s Supper, read the Gospel, and rehearse Christ’s words ; but all the people say thereto, Amen. All remember Christ’s death, all give thanks to God, all repent and offer themselves an oblation to Christ, all take him for their Lord and Saviour, and spiritually feed upon him; and in token thereof, they eat the bread and drink the wine in his mystical supper.[12]

Any Anglican apologist who still believes that the words “dispenser of word and sacrament” signifies something other than the sacraments in contradistinction to the sacrifice of the Mass, should be taken to believe in something on the level of either post-modern nonsense where words mean whatever we say they do, or that they know more about the common public meaning than either the author himself, the major players of the Protestant Reformation, or their Roman Catholic enemies.

Dix argue that the Church of England never did declare or ascribe any official doctrinal meaning to these words until 1562 and thus were not committed to Cranmer’s personal intentions and doctrines[13], but words still have a common public meaning given a precedence of use, one’s cooperation and lack of correction should be taken as an act of complacence, and assent. The hierarchy could have either protested the ordinal, or corrected it, but it did neither until 1662.

The Minor Premise — The Episcopate

The consecration of the episcopate is itself troublesome, but not as bad.

*applies hands*

Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposition of hands: for god hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.

*Then the Archbishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying.*

Give heed unto reading, exhortation and doctrine. Think upon these things contained in this book, be diligent in them, that the increase coming thereby, may be manifest unto all men. Take heed unto yourself, and unto teaching, and be diligent in doing them, for by doing this thou shalt save yourself, and them that hear thee; bee to the flock of Christ a Shepheard, not a wolf: feed them, devour them not; hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind together the broken, bring against the outcastes, seek the lost. Be so merciful, that you be not to remiss, so minister discipline, that ye forget not mercy; that when the chief shepherd shall come, ye may receive the immarcescibly [=unfading] crown of glory, through Jesus Christ our lord. Amen [14]

The power of the order is not explicitly mentioned (but is inferable), nor is the office. No words could possibly signify the effect of the sacrament save “stir up the grace of God”. This is a reference to Paul’s address to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:6–7. The rite could, in theory, be valid if there was some indication it was understood to mean the power to ordain priests and bishops outside the form to provide some determinate meaning.

However, the rite only sees the grace as providing one the power of a teaching office, which is contained in the rite of handing over the Bible and speaking to the power of doctrine. Furthermore, since Cranmer himself did not see it as necessary for bishops to appoint bishops or priests (see my last post under Ambiguous Evidence For The Clarity of the Ordinal), then not only does the rite lack anything to give it meaning internally, but there is contrary external evidence.

While both rites do mention the order in other places, this does not clear up the ambiguity of the words in the form itself which lends to the Protestant and not the Catholic reading of what a bishop/priest are. While the rite of the bishop is stronger, the historical and ritual context still work against it. The rite of the priest however not only contains issues with these contexts, it also contains nothing to signify the effect of the sacrament; worse it contains words which in historical context say the opposite.

The Major Premise — A Defense from Church History

One need to do nothing more to defend what constitutes a valid rite of ordination than look to Church history and present other valid rites of ordination. You build an empirical case, looking at each piece individually and find a common pattern. As Dix himself wrote,

the usual method of arriving at the essentials of Ordinations among theologians since the late seventeenth century has been to examine all known ancient Ordination rites which the Church has accepted as sufficient, to discover the elements which are common to them all, and then to form a theory from those common elements[15]

However, all the ordinals have everything required of the form specified by Pope Pius XII, which were developed through Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae. In response to the Anglican Church’s Saepius Officio (an attempted rebuttal of Pope Leo XIII), the English bishops responded with A Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’. They listed ten ordinals with suffice to show the power of the office by name or by its sacramental effect. I will not write them all, but you can find them at the bottom of this post under the footnotes.

Dix even mention some of the same by name, unfortunately he and the authors of Saepius Officio make a mistake with the Latin. As the authors of The Vindication write,

These forms, however, fully satisfy the requirements of the Bull. You have failed to observe the word ‘or’ in the proposition in which the Bull states what the requirements are. The proposition is disjunctive. The rite for the priesthood, the Pope says, ‘must definitely express the sacred Order of the priesthood or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.’ You do not seem to have perceived the importance of this little word ‘or,’ and have taken it to be the equivalent of ‘and’.[16]

This is a mistake that unfortunately would result in taking only one other recourse, which is an appeal to the ordinal written by St Serapion, who was Bishop of Thmuis. Here is the full form,

We stretch forth the hand, Ο Lord God of the heavens, Father of thy only-begotten, upon this man, and beseech thee that the Spirit of truth may dwell upon him. Give him the grace of prudence and knowledge and a good heart.

Let a divine Spirit come to be in him that he may be able to be a steward of thy people and an ambassador of thy divine oracles, and to reconcile thy people to thee the uncreated God, who didst give of the spirit of Moses upon the chosen ones, even holy Spirit.

Give a portion of holy Spirit also to this man, from the Spirit of thy only-begotten, for the grace of wisdom and knowledge and right faith, that ‘ he may be able to serve thee in a clean conscience (i Tim. iii. 9), through thy only-begotten Jesus Christ, through whom to thee (is) the glory and the strength in holy Spirit both now and for all the ages of the ages. Amen[17]

While this does seem to be an exception to the rule found in the other ordinals, it merely requires a closer inspection.

In Numbers 11:16–30, we read the appointing of seventy-two prudent men (the chosen ones). Here, we have what the Church would have seen as a prefigurement of the priesthood and the use of this prefigurement would be what signifies the office of priest in relation to the bishop. The Second Vatican Council explains this rather well,

Already in the ancient ages of the Church we find liturgical texts proclaiming this with insistence, as when they solemnly call upon God to pour out upon the candidate for priestly ordination “the spirit of grace and counsel, so that with a pure heart he may help and govern the People of God,” just as in the desert the spirit of Moses was spread abroad in the minds of the seventy prudent men[18].

An early example of this can be found in the ordinal for the priesthood in the Apostolic Constitutions, as well as the Abyssinian priestly ordinal.

In terms of other ancient sources, the Pseudo-Clementine Literature, which while it is pseudepigrapha, still provides evidence that this is what the early Church believed.

Therefore He chose us twelve, the first who believed in Him, whom He named apostles; and afterwards other seventy-two most approved disciples, that, at least in this way recognising the pattern of Moses, the multitude might believe that this is He of whom Moses foretold, the Prophet that was to come[19].

Here, the apostles would be the bishops and the 72 elders in the Old Testament would represent their priests. Saint Jerome makes the same parallel in Letter 60, To Heliodorus. He writes,

To be brief, he became a clergyman, and after passing through the usual stages was ordained a presbyter. Good Jesus! how he sighed and groaned! how he fasted and fled the eyes of all! For the first and only time he was angry with his uncle, complaining that the burthen laid upon him was too heavy for him and that his youth unfitted him for the priesthood. But the more he struggled against it, the more he drew to himself the hearts of all: his refusal did but prove him worthy of an office which he was reluctant to assume, and all the more worthy because he declared himself unworthy. We too in our day have our Timothy; we too have seen that wisdom which is as good as gray hairs; our Moses has chosen an elder whom he has known to be an elder indeed.[20]

However, we can grant for the sake of argument that while this Old Testament sign might not by itself signify, it works well in tandem with the New Testament terms which themselves signify the power of the presbyterate. According to Thomas Flynn,

Stephenson does not notice that the Greek word for “ambassador” (πρεσβευτής) is cognate with the word for “old man, elder” (πρέσβυς). In the New Testament it is always used in a comparative form πρεσβύτερος, which in Latin (and therefore English) becomes “presbyter”. It seems that the ordination prayer of Serapion is referring primarily to this passage from the New Testament: 2 Cor 5:18–20.[21]

Flynn argues that the power to reconcile the people of God to God himself is the very power of the order, and the role of ambassador is in reference to the office itself.[22] While these are not explicit, they are still univocal and would be how the Church would have understood those terms going back to the patristics. We read in Saint John Chrysostom the following,

Now we have not to say, “the priests sit on Moses’ seat,” but “on that of Christ”; for they have successively received His doctrine. Wherefore also Paul saith, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us.” (2 Cor. v. 20.) See ye not that in the case of Gentile rulers, all bow to them, and oftentimes even persons superior in family, in life, in intelligence, to those who judge them? Yet still because of him who hath given them, they consider none of these things, but respect the decision of their governor, whosoever he be that receives the rule over them. Is there then such fear when man appoints, but when God appointeth do we despise him who is appointed, and abuse him, and besmirch him with ten thousand reproaches, and though forbidden to judge our brethren, do we sharpen our tongue against our priests? And how can this deserve excuse, when we see not the beam in our own eye, but are bitterly over-curious about the mote in another’s? Knowest thou not that by so judging thou makest thine own judgment the harder? And this I say not as approving of those who exercise their priesthood unworthily, but as greatly pitying and weeping for them.[23]

As well as Saint Ambrose of Milan

This Melchizedek, then, have we received as a priest of God made upon the model of Christ, but the one we regard as the type, the other as the original. Now a type is a shadow of the truth, and we have accepted the royalty of the one in the name of a single city, but that of the other as shown in the reconciliation of the whole world; for it is written: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself”[24]

Lastly, we have Augustine who writes,

And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds: “for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”[25]

Between the prefigurment of the priesthood in the Old Testament, the use of ambassador as the role of an elder, and the ministry of reconciliation as another way of speaking of the sacrifice of the Mass, it has becomes far less clear that the order has not been signified for a Christian in the early church.

I sense that an Anglican might say I am being unfair and applying a double standard, but, in order to get the meaning of the Serapion’s ordinal, I presented historical evidence from a patristic context for ministry of reconciliation as part of the effect of the sacrament (being able to consecrate the host at mass). Not to mention for the Church’s understanding that the ministry of Moses’ elders were a prefigurement and signifier for the office of a priest; as well as other ordinals which used such signifiers as well.

I applied the same standard. When I searched for the context of how the words “stir up” and “dispensing of the sacraments” were used, not only did the surrounding ordinal lack anything to give them the proper signification of a sacramental effect, they were not how the Church understood them (or in the case of the priesthood, created to disregard the sacramental effect). And not only did the surrounding context not help, but from external context, were used in a way contrary to how the Church used them. It was just as akin to a Mormon using “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in baptism to signify something totally foreign to the meaning of the words.

I could see a case if Cranmer’s theology necessitated a bishop for the ordination of bishops and priests, but his theology speaks to the contrary. And even if it did, the wording in the priestly ordinal is so beyond defective with a contrary signification, it does not help the case for Anglican orders as one requires a priest to be made a bishop.

Objection from Scripture

One response is to use scripture to deny that the signification of the office is necessary, or it is somehow contained within the words of Christ. To quote my friend James,

in the Gospel of John we see Jesus Himself consecrating the Apostles for the Work of the Ministry. No statement of “for the office and work of a priest/bishop” is mentioned following His injunction to “receive the Holy Ghost”.[26]

Here is the verse James is alluding to,

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained[27]

However, all this presupposes that Jesus would be bound by the sacraments, but as we know, God himself is not bound by them, even if we grant he makes no such reference, it would be no more of an argument that the laying on of hands isn’t necessary for us since Jesus doesn’t lay hands but uses his breath to signify to the Apostles the power of the order. The laying on of hands develops in and is instituted by the Church, and as such so could have a further requirement of the form as well. James makes a further argument from silence by claiming it is never mentioned in the Book of Acts or the various other pastoral letters[28], but given that they mention no form at all, this is a mere argument from silence.

But this gets worse. There is no reason to accept that any priestly ordination is going on. Catholics believe, as decreed by the council of Trent that the apostles were ordained priests at the Last Supper.

If anyone shall say that by the words ‘Do this in commemoration of me’ Christ did not institute the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his body and blood: let him be anathema[29]

There is good Biblical evidence to believe this. To give one example from Karlo Broussard’s fantastic article,

The second detail that could serve as a justification for the claim that Jesus made the apostles priests at the Last Supper is the washing of the apostles’ feet (John 13:4–5).

In the Old Testament the ritual washing of Aaron and his sons played a prominent role in their ordination ceremonies. For example, God gives Moses the following instructions:

“Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water, and put upon Aaron the holy garments, and you shall anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve me as priest” (Exod. 40:12–13).

This passage refers to a general washing, but verses 30–32 of the same chapter specifically refer to washing Aaron and his sons’ feet on the day of their consecration to the priesthood:

“And he set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it for washing, with which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet; when they went into the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed; as the Lord commanded Moses”

Leviticus 8:7 describes how Moses carries out these washings before he dresses Aaron and his sons with priestly garments.[30]

Broussard provides more evidence in his article, and I would suggest checking out the footnote for the link. The Anglican would need to offer up a better explanation for why the apostles were made priests in John 20:21–23. As to what John 20:21–23 means, I take it as Christ either making the apostle’s bishops (which counts against the Anglican ordinal’s having a meaning in line with the meaning of the Church) or even just providing them jurisdiction (not the power of the order to offer the Mass, as that came earlier at the Last Supper) to forgive sins like a bishop would to an ordained priest.

Conclusion — Ramifications

To conclude what an invalid ordinal means for the Anglican Church, I will read the words of Pope Leo XIII,

This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.[31]

Footnotes

[1] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, para. 25, Link

[2] The Form for Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop, 1552–1559 Book of Common Prayer. Link

[3] The Form for Ordering Priests, 1552–1559 Book of Common Prayer. Link

[4] Pope Pius XII, On the Sacrament of Order. Para. 4. Link

[5] 1913 Merriam-Webster dictionary. Link

[6] Michael T. Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Chapter V. p. 43–44. Link

[7] John Calvin, Institutes, Book IV, chapter 28, Link

[8] The Augsburg Confession (1530) by Philipp Melanchthon, translated by Gerhard Friedrich Bente, Article V. Link

[9] Philip Melanchthon, The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Part 18, Article XIII (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments. Link

[10] Anglican and Episcopal History. Historical Society of the Episcopal Church. 2003. p. 15

[11] Council of Trent, Chapter IV, Canon III. Session XXIII. Link

On the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, and on Ordination

[12] Thomas Cranmer, A Defense of the True Catholic Faith, p. 243–244

[13] Gregory Dix, The Question of Anglican Orders: Letters to a Layman, p.30

[14] The Form for Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop, 1552–1559 Book of Common Prayer. Link

[15] Gregory Dix, The Question of Anglican Orders: Letters to a Layman, p.41

[16] H.A. Vaughan et el, A Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’, p.24

[17] Bishop Sarapion’s prayer-book : an Egyptian pontifical dated probably about A.D. 350–356. p. 73. Link.

[18] Pope Paul VI, The decree On The Ministry And Life Of Priests; Presbyterorum Ordinis, Para. 7.

[19] Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions of Clement. Book I, Chapter XL. Link.

[20] Jerome, To Heliodorus, Letter LX, Para 10. Link.

[21] Thomas Flynn, Is there a new context which will allow the Catholic Church to recognise the validity of Anglican orders? P. 94–95.

[22] ibid

[23] Chrysostom, Homily LXXXVI, John 20, Link

[24] Ambrose, Prolegomena, Link

[25] Augustine, The Enchiridion, Chap. 41, link

[26] Adam James, From Generation to Generation: The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism, p4. Link

[27] John 20:21–23, Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.

[28] Adam James, From Generation to Generation: The Validity of Holy Orders within Anglicanism, p4. Link

[29] Council of Trent, Chapter I, Canon II. Session XXII. Link

[30] Karlo Broussard, Did Jesus Make the Apostles Priests at the Last Supper?, Link

[31] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, para. 26, Link

The Rites