139. On the Matter of Order

1. "Titius, when he approached to receive the priesthood, was prohibited by the master of ceremonies, little skilled in his office, from touching the chalice and paten while the bishop was pronouncing those words of the form: Receive power, etc.; but immediately after the whole form had been pronounced, he was ordered to touch. Afterward he doubted about the value and security of his ordination, and whether he could or ought to be ordained again under condition.

"I said in the aforesaid Case that Titius could rest in the first ordination without any repetition, even conditional; nevertheless he would not sin if, for the greater quiet of his soul, he were ordained again under condition, which also the bishop could licitly do in his favor ... Because the opinion teaching that the first ordination is not valid, although it has on its side some ancient authors, nevertheless is now so deserted that it seems antiquated and to lack every probability ... yet it seems probable, at least through extrinsic principles, that it can be repeated under condition. For Cajetan, Scotus, Richardus, Navarrus, and Zambranus denied the value of the first ordination." Thus Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 33, nn. 3, 5.

But if the ordination in the Case is held as certainly valid, and therefore safely not to be repeated, it is not understood how someone can at the same time hold some opinion as destitute of every intrinsic probability, and yet hold it as probable by extrinsic probability, so that nevertheless, in the Case, ordination can licitly be repeated. "For neither," as Lugo himself has in the place cited, n. 4, "does it suffice for a moral doubt of ordination that some authors have said it is not valid, if nevertheless it is established that they said this without sufficient foundation." This indeed the same Lugo demonstrates in this way, asserting at the same time that in fact the ordination of Titius had been held as valid, and that no bishop could be induced to repeat it. "The common opinion of theologians," he says in the place cited, n. 1, "does not require mathematical simultaneity, but moral simultaneity between the matter and form of the sacrament ... Nor does the contrary opinion seem to have probability, since there is not a sufficient foundation for requiring that mathematical simultaneity; indeed, in the conferral of the diaconate and subdiaconate this is not in fact observed, but the form having been pronounced by the bishop in the plural number for all those to be ordained, each one successively touches the book or instruments. Why therefore could the same not be done in the conferral of the priesthood, so that the bishop would say to all: Receive power, etc., and afterward each would successively touch the matter; or, if perhaps the number of those to be ordained were large, the bishop would repeat the same form three or four times with interrupted delays, lest the pronouncement of the form be too distant from the contact of the matter? I know that sometime some bishop did this thus, and, if I remember well, Fr. Luisius ab Alcazar narrated to me that he had in fact been ordained priest in this way, nor could the bishop be brought to repeat the form under condition and present the matter, constantly asserting that this was demanded without any foundation at all. Wherefore, in the Case brought to us, the same would have to be said a fortiori, in which a much greater simultaneity intervened, and therefore many bishops, asked by the same Titius to ordain him again under condition, constantly refused this, not daring, on account of that very slight scruple, to repeat sacred ordination even under condition."

Nor likewise is it understood what Lugo also has in nn. 3 and 5 to demonstrate his assertion, namely that it can well be that the opinion denying the value of the ordination is not probable, and at the same time that the opinion affirming the obligation of repetition is probable: "for they are diverse questions." They are indeed diverse questions, but so connected that if the value of the ordination is truly morally certain, as in the Case, then consequently the ordination cannot be repeated; for the obligation, morally certain, of not repeating the ordination follows from its morally certain value. Baptism itself cannot be repeated unless its value is positively doubtful. I. M. 888.

2. Adulphus is afflicted with great anxiety, because in his priestly ordination with one hand indeed he touched the chalice and paten with the host, but with the other hand he also touched the paten with the host, but the chalice only with the nail of the middle finger. Wherefore he urgently asks that he be ordained again, at least under condition.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Adulphus ought to be altogether at peace, and neither ought nor can he be ordained again, even under condition. For he was altogether validly ordained, since the touch of the paten and chalice was certainly not lacking, and indeed such as is prescribed by the Roman Pontifical. Just as he who touches with a finger truly touches with the hand, so also he who touches with a nail truly touches with the finger; and if he touches with the nail, he certainly touches. Besides, he who, through the medium of a glove, struck another with the hand and assaulted him with blows, would certainly touch him. Therefore a fortiori he truly touches who touches through the medium of the nail. Moreover, since Adulphus with one hand perfectly touched the instruments, with the other perfectly touched the host with the paten, and has a scruple only with regard to the touch, through the medium of the nail, of the chalice with the other hand, there can be no doubt about his valid ordination. Let La-Croix, n. 2155, be heard: "If the ordinand touches the matter with only one hand, or only one finger, Sanchez, etc., rightly teach that this suffices for the value of the ordination, because he who touches with one hand is said simply to touch, indeed even if with the nail alone of the hand, as Lugo and Gobat have; for, if with the nail alone you were to tear the face of another, certainly you would be said to have touched him. A further reason is that we ought not to say that something is required for the essence of the sacrament, when without it the form of the sacrament is preserved; and the authority of Scripture or of the Church does not compel us to require such a thing." St. Alphonsus 743 has the same: "Escobar rightly says that it suffices for validity that the matter be touched with one hand. And likewise Escobar, etc., with the common opinion, rightly judge that mediate touch suffices, namely if the chalice, paten, or book is touched through some veil or glove; for he who touches in this way is said in the sense of all truly to touch." Cf. Coll. S. C. de P. F., n. 1205.

3. 1.º "Fr. N. N., positively doubting whether in his ordination he physically touched the paten, although he is certain that he touched the host, asked for his own quiet: what must be done in this Case?

R. Let him acquiesce. S. O., July 2, 1892; Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 2178.

2.º "Caius, a priest ... touched only the paten together with the host placed upon the chalice, but not the chalice, although he strove to reach it with his finger.

R. Let the petitioner acquiesce." S. O., March 17, 1897.

3.º "Gaspar, a priest ... there being four or five ordinands, and all crowding to touch the instruments, remembers that he had first touched them, but nevertheless in the act in which the formula was being pronounced, although he hurried to touch them again, he did not succeed in doing it, having been impeded by the hands of the others.

R. Let the petitioner acquiesce." S. O., March 17, 1897.

4.º "Sempronius ... not having used the index and middle fingers in touching the instruments, but the index fingers and thumbs, first touched the cup of the chalice; but then, when the bishop was pronouncing the formula, touched only the paten with the host placed upon the chalice.

R. Let the petitioner acquiesce." S. O., March 17, 1897.

5.º "Those ordained to the orders of subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood by Bishop A., the matter of the said orders not having been presented by him, are to be ordained again under condition and singly to the said orders, the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical being observed." S. O., Aug. 1, 1697; M. E., vol. 9, part 2, p. 217. - E. M. 884 ff.

4. "A certain bishop, when he wished to confer the order of diaconate on a certain subdeacon, in carrying out his ordination indeed suspended his right hand, and at a very small distance, over his head, without nevertheless touching the aforesaid head bodily. Not very long afterward he promoted the same cleric to the priestly order. - Whether, to repair the defect of the aforesaid ordination, the whole ordination of the diaconate must be repeated under condition in that priest?

R. Affirmatively." S. O., Jan. 20, 1875; M. E., place cited, p. 231.

5. In the priestly ordination of Pancratius, the first imposition of hands by the bishop and by the other assisting priests was omitted. Indeed, the bishop and the other priests, while the Oremus, fratres carissimi, etc., was being recited by the bishop, all omitted the extension of the right hand over the ordinand. Immediately when the bishop completed the aforesaid prayer, having been admonished about the omission of the imposition of the hand, he supplied it by imposing hands upon his head. - Was the ordination of Pancratius valid?

R. The aforesaid ordination can be called into doubt from the fact that the second imposition of the hand, or extension, was omitted, which also according to the common opinion is held as necessary for ordination. Wherefore, although the first imposition of hands was validly supplied, because, made immediately after the form, it was now morally joined with it, nevertheless it alone does not suffice. Yet, considering the common doctrine of theologians concerning the first and the second imposition of hands, the ordination is more truly valid in the Case. For therefore the first and second imposition of hands are commonly required, because in the first there is had bodily touch, which is lacking in the second, and in the second there is had the form, which is lacking in the first. Wherefore the second imposition of the hand is only the continuation of the first, namely for having the moral union of the first imposition of the hand with the form; hence in the concrete there is only one continued imposition of hands. If therefore immediately after the form the imposition of hands was supplied by bodily touch, the ordination must be called valid. I. M. 883; M. E., vol. 12, p. 375. Immediately after the form. For if, for example, the aforesaid imposition of hands were supplied after the handing over of the instruments and when the Canon of the Mass had already begun, the ordination would have to be repeated entirely under condition. S. O., Aug. 22, 1900; A. S. S., vol. 33, p. 224 ff.