140. On the Subject and Minister of Order

1. "In the year 1790 a certain young Frenchman, born from the diocese of Nantes, entered Tonkin; he seems suitable to receive orders and intends to devote himself to the Tonkin Mission. But in doubt whether dimissorial letters can be obtained from the bishop of his native diocese, it is asked whether it is not lawful for apostolic vicars to ordain, without dimissorial letters, those whose Ordinaries are so distant that recourse to them is most difficult, especially after the ordinands of whom there is question have dwelt for at least three years under the jurisdiction of the apostolic vicars and have been supported at their expense, as of their family?

R. It is not lawful, but it can be permitted to the apostolic vicar of Tonkin, in the Case of the young Frenchman from the diocese of Nantes, considering the circumstances, to enroll him in the clerical militia and promote him to orders without the dimissorial letters of his Ordinary, if no impediment exists and insofar as he is found suitable. - The Most Holy approved." S. C. de P. F., Jan. 18, 1793; A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 577.

2. Benedictus, a monk of the Benedictine Congregation, received first tonsure and minor orders from the abbot of his monastery. But Benedictus is greatly afflicted, doubting about the validity of such ordination, since the abbot of the monastery, although he was legitimately elected in chapter, nevertheless did not receive the blessing.

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

R. Abbots indeed can confer first tonsure and minor orders on their regular subjects, as is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 10, de R. But, "so that they can use this power, they must not only be constituted in the order of priesthood, but they must besides obtain the blessing from the bishop, unless perhaps the bishop, being requested a third time with humility and devotion, as is fitting, should refuse to bless them, according to the text in c. Statuimus, de Suppl. neglig. praelator., or unless they are supported by some other peculiar privilege, by which power is made for them, even without receiving the office of blessing, to perform all things which belong to abbots, in some way consecrated by the blessing of the bishop."

Thus Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 2, c. 11, n. 9. Therefore, if the abbot of the monastery in the Case did not receive the blessing because the bishop, having been requested, refused to give it, Benedictus was surely validly initiated by first tonsure and minor orders, as is had from the aforesaid c. 1, de Suppl. neglig. praelat. Nor indeed "can it be doubted that the Pope can concede this, because that blessing does not imprint character, nor is it from the institution of Christ so that it should be considered necessary for this concession; therefore, just as the Pope can commit Confirmation to a simple priest without some previous blessing, so also ordination; and thus for that Case in fact he committed it." Suarez, de Relig., tom. 4, l. 2, c. 29, n. 16. Indeed for that Case it is said in the aforesaid Decretal that it is lawful for abbots to bless their own monks and to exercise other things which pertain to an office of this sort. But if the abbot of the monastery in the Case did not receive the blessing because he omitted to ask for it, or because he is a triennial abbot, who is not blessed since he is not perpetual, and the blessing is, as it were, perpetual and indelible, then the difficulty is greater. "Some," says Suarez in the place cited, n. 17, "affirm this from privileges conceded to the Cistercian family in Spain." But the same Suarez affirms it, as is to be seen both in this n. 17 and in n. 25 and n. 28. And as is clearly affirmed in the aforesaid nn. 17 and 25, and deduced from n. 28, Suarez affirms this generally not only about Cistercian abbots, but about all abbots who, namely, possess the true office and dignity of abbot. Mention of the same privileges is also had apud Diana, coordinated ed., tom. 2, tr. 5, resol. 81. But Benedict XIV denies it, as clearly appears from the text cited above and from Quaest. Canon. 373, unless namely there is a special privilege. Decisions of the S. C. C. surely seem to require blessing or privilege. For the S. C. C. constantly affirms that abbots of this sort can indeed confer first tonsure and minor orders on their regular subjects if they are solemnly blessed and priests; or those to whom a privilege has been conceded by the Apostolic See that they can do all things which blessed abbots can do. Cf. Benedict XIV, Quaest. Can., cited. Wherefore it must be concluded that Benedictus illicitly and invalidly received first tonsure and minor orders, if the abbot of the monastery did not have the aforesaid privilege.