I. On the Nature, Matter and Form of Order

What is order? - Order can be taken in two ways: for ordination, or that action by which sacred power is conferred, and for the order itself, or sacred power, the effect of ordination. "The name of order," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 2 ad 4, "is taken in two ways. For sometimes it signifies the relation itself; and thus it is both in the inferior and in the superior..., and thus it is not taken here. But sometimes it is taken for the grade itself which makes order taken in the first way. And because the notion of order is found where first something superior to another occurs, therefore here an eminent grade by spiritual power is named order." - Order, or ordination, is a sacrament of the New Law by which spiritual power is handed on in relation to the Eucharist, and grace is conferred for duly undertaking ecclesiastical duties. But order, the effect of the sacrament, is the aforesaid spiritual power which is bestowed on the ordained. The orders indeed are various, but through all there is a tendency toward priesthood, and therefore toward the ministry of the altar. Therefore there is one power of all, a part of which is bestowed on each, and from all there is had one sacrament. "For the whole fullness of this sacrament is in one order, namely priesthood, but in the others there is a certain participation of order... And therefore all orders are one sacrament." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 1 ad 2. - Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, 3, c. 2, 3; Decree Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 49, 50, 54, 55; L. 744, 745; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 1-3; q. 35, a. 2; q. 36, a. 3; q. 37, a. 1; E. M.

What is the effect of this sacrament? - Sanctifying grace; sacramental grace for duly undertaking the sacred mystery; the impression of character. Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, 4, c. 4; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 35, a. 1, 2. But character is impressed not only in the priesthood, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 1; but also in the diaconate, St. Thomas, ib. ad 5; in the subdiaconate, St. Thomas, q. 38, a. 1 ad 2; in the acolytate, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 2; and in the other minor orders, but by no means in first tonsure, St. Thomas, q. 40, a. 2 ad 2. But cf. 880. According to St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 40, a. 5 ad 2, a new character is not impressed in the episcopate; but it is more commonly asserted that a distinct character is also impressed in the episcopate. Cf. 878. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. confer.; Roman Catechism 34; L. 378.

How many orders are there; what is their division; what sort of institution do they have? - In the Latin Church there are seven: Ostiariate, Lectorate, Exorcistate, Acolytate, Subdiaconate, Diaconate, Priesthood, which is distinguished into Presbyterate and Episcopate. "The multitude of orders," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 1, "was introduced in the Church for three reasons..., for commending the wisdom of God..., for relieving human infirmity..., that a broader way of advancing might be given to men." But the sacrament of order is ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of sacraments. "And therefore the distinction of orders is to be taken according to relation to the Eucharist." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2. Whence suitably only seven orders are recounted. For indeed "the power of order is either for consecration of the Eucharist itself, or for some ministry ordered to this sacrament of the Eucharist. If in the first way, thus it is the order of priests... But the cooperation of ministers is either in order to the sacrament itself, or in order to those receiving. If in the first way, thus it is threefold: 1. for there is the ministry by which the minister cooperates with the priest in the sacrament itself as regards distribution, but not as regards consecration..., and this pertains to the deacon...; 2. there is the ministry ordered to preparing the matter of the sacrament in the sacred vessels of the sacrament itself, and this pertains to subdeacons...; 3. there is the ministry ordered to presenting the matter of the sacrament, and this belongs to the acolyte... The ministry ordered to the preparation of recipients cannot be except over the unclean, because those who are clean are already fit for receiving the sacraments. But there is a threefold kind of unclean persons... For some are altogether unbelievers not wishing to believe, and these must be kept entirely even from the sight of divine things and the assembly of the faithful; and this pertains to doorkeepers. But some are willing to believe but not yet instructed, namely catechumens; and for their instruction the order of lectors is ordained. Therefore the first rudiments of the doctrine of faith, namely the Old Testament, are committed to them to be read. But some are instructed faithful, yet having an impediment from the power of the devil, namely energumens; and for this ministry there is the order of exorcists." St. Thomas, l.c. - "In the primitive Church, because of the fewness of ministers, all lower ministries were committed to deacons... Nevertheless all the aforesaid powers were present, but implicitly in the one power of the deacon. But afterward divine worship was enlarged, and the Church handed on explicitly in different orders what it had implicitly in one order." St. Thomas, l.c. ad 2; Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, ib. C. 17, de Ref.

In the Greek Church for many centuries there have been only four orders, namely Presbyterate, Diaconate, Subdiaconate, Lectorate. The duties of doorkeeper and acolyte are attributed partly to the lector, partly to the subdeacon. But the Greeks do not have the exorcistate as a true order. Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n. 7. But whether formerly they had more is disputed by the learned. Cf. Theology of Wurzburg, n. 54.

The seven orders are divided in the Latin Church so that the first four are called minor and non-sacred orders, the latter three major and sacred, because the former approach more remotely, the latter more closely, to the Eucharist, the end of all orders. Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, c. 2. - Now an order can be denominated sacred according to a certain common reason, and in this way all orders are sacred, as those which speak not of a profane or secular power, but of a sacred or ecclesiastical power. It can also be denominated sacred properly, insofar as it signifies a certain special prerogative not fitting to all orders. If sacred order is taken in this way, it has a threefold acceptance. 1. By reason of the power itself conferred through ordination, and thus an order is called sacred insofar as it bestows spiritual power of serving more closely in the sacrifice of the altar. In this sense priesthood, diaconate, and subdiaconate always seem to have been sacred orders. For Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, says that the names and proper ministries of each of the seven orders have been in use from the very beginning of the Church; and ibid. C. 17, de Ref., that the functions of holy orders from the diaconate to the ostiariate have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the Apostles. 2. By reason of the solemn vow of chastity annexed to the order, and in this sense the subdiaconate was not always a sacred order. 3. By reason of the hierarchy of prelacy or principality, and in this way only priests and deacons are placed by the Fathers in sacred order, since clerics of the other orders do not preside over the people, but only minister to priests and deacons. Trent, sess. 23, C. 4, c. 6; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 3; 4, d. 24, q. 2, a. 1, qc. 3 ad 1, ad 5; Wurzburg, n. 66, 68, 69.

As the subdiaconate was not always held as a sacred order, so it also was not always held as a major order in a special sense, as is clear from C. A multis 9, de Aetat., etc., praeficiend., where Innocent III, in the year 1207, from the fact that the subdiaconate was now numbered among the sacred orders by reason of chastity to be observed, established "that a subdeacon can freely be elected as Bishop, just as a deacon or priest." Hence the subdiaconate, which before was counted among the minor orders for this reason, that he could not freely be elected as Bishop, began to be numbered among the major ones. Freely; since before, except for cause of utility, and then also except by permission of the Metropolitan or Roman Pontiff, the election could not be held. Further, if it was already numbered among sacred orders in the time of Gregory and Urban II, in the year 1091, as is clear from the cited C. A multis, and from C. Miramur 7, de Serv. non ordinand., it was also absolutely counted among the major orders, "because they also ministered at the altars." And indeed the Council of Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, says: "subdiaconate is referred to the major orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils." From C. Non oportet 26, Dist. 23; C. Nullus 4, Dist. 60, subdeacons did not have permission of entering the Sacrarium and touching the Vessels of the Lord; namely the sacrarium in which, after the mysteries had been completed, the Eucharist was replaced by deacons, and the sacred vessels placed on the altar at the time of sacrifice, or containing the Body and Blood of Christ. Cf. Wurzburg, n. 70.

As regards the institution of the aforesaid orders inferior to the priesthood, it is certain by faith: that the institution of ministers as such, insofar as under this name come those who serve the priesthood, abstracting from the diverse grades which can be found in them, is of divine right; for this is expressly defined in Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, c. 6. But that the institution of the individual orders which we have enumerated is disjunctively either of simply or immediately divine right, or at least of mediately divine right, namely from power divinely granted to the Church: this is evidently had from c. 2. - But that each was immediately instituted by Christ the Lord is not agreed among authors as regards the subdiaconate and the minor orders. Yet an affirmative response can be given with great probability from c. 6 of Trent compared with c. 2 and de Ref., C. 17. - Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 10; E. M.

What are the individual orders; what are the offices of each? - Ostiariate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of opening and closing the door of the church, and of admitting the worthy and excluding the unworthy. "And therefore it must be said that he receives power so that he can do this from office; although it can also be done by others, but not from office.

And so it is in all the acts of minor orders, that they can licitly be done by others, although they do not have any office for this, just as Mass can also be said in a house not consecrated, although the consecration of a church is ordered to this, that Mass be said in it." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 4. Besides, it belongs to the doorkeeper to strike the cymbal and bell for calling the people to church; to open the book for him who preaches; to assist at the sacrifice of the Mass, taking care lest anyone approach the sacred altar nearer than is fitting and interrupt the priest doing the divine thing; to guard the keys of the Temple, the door, and the things which are within the church. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. ostiar.; Roman Catechism 15.

Lectorate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of reading from the pulpit in church the books of the New and Old Testament, but especially those which are accustomed to be read during the nocturnal psalmody. It also belongs to him to hand on to the faithful the first rudiments of the Christian Religion, but not to preach. Besides, it belongs to the lector to bless bread and all new fruits. But today these blessings are performed by priests alone. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. lect.; Roman Catechism 16; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 36, a. 2 ad 3; q. 37, a. 4 ad 8.

Exorcistate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of casting out demons from energumens, whether baptized persons or catechumens, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 8. Nevertheless the faculty of exorcizing is reserved only to priests, who can use it only by permission of the Ordinary. And priests can use it also as regards possessed infidels. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 11, 1779, Collectanea, n. 1980; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 8. It also belongs to the exorcist to say to the people that whoever is not communicating should give place, and to pour water in the ministry. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. exorc.; Roman Catechism 17.

Acolytate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of lighting the lights of the church and of preparing and presenting for the Eucharist the cruets of wine and water. Therefore his duty is to minister to the priest himself in private Mass, and in solemn Mass to attend upon and assist the greater ministers, subdeacons and deacons, in the ministry of the altar. Besides, he carries and keeps the lights when the sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated, but especially when the Gospel is read, from which he is called by another name, candle-bearer. "The acolyte serves the deacon by carrying the candle before him to the Gospel, and the cruet by which he serves the subdeacon." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 38, a. 1 ad 2. "The more principal act of the acolyte is that by which he ministers with the cruet, than that by which he ministers with the candlestick." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 6; a. 4 ad 6, 7, 8. Roman Pontifical, de Ord. acol.; Roman Catechism 18.

Subdiaconate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of serving the deacon in solemn Mass and solemnly chanting the Epistle. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 3, ad 4, ad 6; a. 5 ad 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 2. For he must prepare the sacred linens, vessels, bread, and wine necessary for the use of the sacrifice; offer the chalice and paten to the deacon for the use of the sacrifice; provide water to the Bishop and priest when they wash their hands in the sacrifice of the Mass. As a witness he assists at the sacred rite; and he prevents the priest doing sacred things from being disturbed by anyone. It also belongs to him to wash the palls, corporals, and purificators, and to carry the cross in processions. The principal act of the subdeacon consists "in this, that he cooperates concerning the matter of the sacrament." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 38, a. 1 ad 2; Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. subd.; Roman Catechism 19. - "In a case of necessity, provided no other is present, a cleric who is not a subdeacon can perform the office of subdeacon in solemn Mass." S. R. C., July 22, 1848, ad 4, Floren. Nevertheless he cannot wear the maniple. S. R. C., July 17, 1894, Dubior., ad 7.

Diaconate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of immediately assisting the priest in solemn Mass and solemnly chanting the Gospel. Its more principal act is over the Body of Christ contained in the vessel. "Whence it does not belong to him to touch the Body of Christ, but to carry the Body on the paten and dispense the Blood with the chalice." The secondary act is solemnly to chant the Gospel. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 5; a. 4 ad 3, ad 4, ad 6; q. 38, a. 1 ad 2. It also belongs to the deacon, from commission, to preach, baptize, and distribute Communion. But whether a deacon, in order to preach at some time, needs the special permission of the Bishop, or whether the permission of the pastor or rector of the church suffices, seems to have to be determined from particular statutes or custom. - "It pertains to him to follow the Bishop perpetually, to guard him when preaching, and to be present to him and to the priest doing sacred things or administering other sacraments, and to read the Gospel in the sacrifice of the Mass. Formerly he often stirred up the souls of the faithful so that they would attend to sacred things; he also ministered the Blood of the Lord in those Churches in which that custom existed, that the faithful would receive the Eucharist under both species. Besides, the dispensation of ecclesiastical goods was committed to the deacon, that he might supply to each person what was necessary for living. - It also pertains to the deacon, as the eye of the Bishop, to investigate who in the city pass their life piously and religiously, and who otherwise; who come to the sacrifice and sermon at stated times, and who again do not come... He must also recite the names of catechumens, and set before the Bishop those who are to be initiated by the sacrament of order. - Besides, if the Bishop and priest are absent, it is lawful for him to explain the Gospel, but not from a higher place, so that it may be understood that this is not his proper duty." Roman Catechism 20; Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. diac.

Presbyterate or priesthood is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ, and also of remitting and retaining sins. From the former comes his principal act; from the latter his secondary act. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 8; a. 5 c. ad 2. - "And because someone is made in proximate disposition to the Eucharist by this, that he is cleansed from sins, therefore the proper minister of all the sacraments which are instituted principally for the cleansing of sins is the priest, namely of baptism, penance, and extreme unction." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 1. - It also belongs to the priest to effect various blessings, and to feed the people of the Christian faithful by word and example. Trent, sess. 23, C. 1, c. 1; Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. presb.; Roman Catechism 25.

Episcopate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of confirming the faithful and ordaining ministers of the sacraments, and also of consecrating things pertaining to divine worship. Ministers of the sacraments, in the broader sense, namely not only those who confect the sacraments, but also those who from office minister to those confecting them. To Bishops it also belongs to govern the Church of God. Trent, sess. 23, C. 4, c. 6, 7; Roman Pontifical, de Consecr. episc.; L. 736, 747, 805; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2.

Note: "Since the consecration which is done in the sacrament of order is ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is the principal act of each order according to which it is more proximately ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist. And according to this also one order is more eminent than another, according as one act is more proximately ordered to the aforesaid sacrament. But because many things are ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist as to the most worthy thing, therefore it is not unfitting that, besides the principal act, one order also have many acts, and so many more as it is more eminent, because the higher a power is, the more things it extends itself to." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4.

Is episcopate an order distinct from presbyterate? - "St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and others deny, who say that it is an extension of the order of presbyterate. But Bellarmine, Tournely, etc., more commonly affirm, both because in it a distinct character is handed on, and a special power toward the Eucharist, namely of constituting the ministers of this sacrament; and because the order of episcopate is conferred through imposition of hands, and through the form, Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Nor is it valid to say that if episcopate were a distinct order, a Bishop could at least validly be ordained, although he were not a priest; for the response is that this is required by divine ordination, just as it is required that one be baptized who wishes to be confirmed or ordained." L. 378. - According to the first opinion of St.

Thomas, just as in the ordination of a priest, in the last imposition of the hand and through the words, Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., there would not be a new distinct order, a new distinct sacrament, a new distinct character; so episcopate and priesthood are not two orders in number, but one order in number, nor two sacraments in number, but one sacrament in number. Whence by the ordination of a Bishop the priestly power is extended, which is the principal one, and thus also the priestly character is extended, which is the principal one; and therefore not so much is a new character conferred, as a certain perfection and extension of the priestly character, since the one power is completive and perfective of the other. - Benedict XIV, Constitution In postremo, § 10, 17; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 40, a. 5; q. 35, a. 1 compared with q. 38, a. 1 and Lesson 3 on 2 Timothy; Sylvester Maurus, Opus Theologicum, t. 3, q. 265, n. 29.

What is first tonsure and how is it conferred? - First tonsure is not an order, except broadly, but only a disposition to orders, by which someone becomes a cleric, namely is transferred from the lay state into the lot of the Lord, and is deputed to divine worship; and becomes capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, an ecclesiastical benefice, and clerical privileges. Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, ibid. C. 6 de Ref. - But it is conferred by the cutting of the hair or of an assumed head of hair, S. R. C., Sept. 25, 1846, n. 2919, and by the words, The Lord is my portion, etc., and also by the handing over of the surplice through a suitable minister, from the institution of the Church. Each one, when he is tonsured, says: The Lord is my portion, etc.; these words "let even the Bishop pronounce according to custom." S. R. C., Nov. 12, 1831, Marsor., ad 3. - L. 734, 735; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 40, a. 2; Roman Pontifical, de Cler. fac.; Roman Catechism, n. 13, 14.

Are the individual orders sacraments? - That the presbyterate is a sacrament is openly clear from Trent, can. 1, 2, 3, 6, taken together. - As regards the diaconate and episcopate, this is drawn from the same Trent; since from c. 6 there is had the divine institution of Bishops and ministers, and therefore at least of deacons; but from c. 4 there is had that grace is annexed to the conferral of episcopate and diaconate. For those words, Receive the Holy Spirit, which from Trent are truly significative and collative of grace, the Bishop pronounces not only in the ordination of a priest, but also in the ordination of a deacon and in the consecration of a Bishop.

Finally, that the subdiaconate very probably, and the minor orders also, are each more probably sacraments, is deduced from the Florentine Decree for the Armenians, where all orders are equally recounted under the sacrament of order; matter and form of the sacrament are assigned for all, and the minister of the same sacrament of order is indicated, ordinary and extraordinary; this extraordinary minister can be affirmed only of the minor orders and subdiaconate. A similar argument can be made from Trent; for C. 3 and c. 3 say indefinitely that order or sacred ordination is a sacrament. Besides, in the obvious and natural sense in the aforesaid C. 3 and c. 3 there is question of order or sacred ordination, about which discussion was had in C. 1 and 2, c. 1 and 2. But there is question there of order insofar as it comprehends not only presbyterate, but also the other orders. Cf. also can. 6 and chap. 2 and 4 together. Moreover this is confirmed from the character which is impressed both in subdiaconate and in minor orders according to what is deduced from the Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. confer., and Roman Catechism, n. 34. - Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 9. Cf. here n. 892.

St. Alphonsus 736, 737, 755 holds it probable that all orders are sacraments; but more probable that only presbyterate and diaconate are sacraments; and very probably that episcopate also is a true sacrament distinct from presbyterate. But St. Thomas clearly teaches, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2 ad 1 and a. 3, that they are sacraments. "Whence since character is a sign distinguishing from others, it is necessary that character be impressed in all orders; of which this also is a sign, that they remain perpetually and are never repeated. And this is the third opinion, which is more common"; Suppl., q. 35, a. 2.

What is the matter of ordination? - It is various for the various orders. - In minor orders the matter is only the handing over of the instruments; namely the instruments are the remote matter, the handing over of the same the proximate matter. Therefore it is necessary that the ordaining one present them to the one to be ordained, and that the one to be ordained receive or touch them with the hand, as the practice of the Church and the words of the form suggest. St. Thomas, III, q. 34, a. 5 ad 3. Further, the instruments of ostiariate consist in the keys of the Church; yet it suffices for validity to use any keys whatever apt for opening, and even one. The instruments of Lectorate are the codex of Sacred Readings, i.e., the Missal, Breviary, or Volume of Sacred Scripture, or book of the Scriptures; of Exorcistate, the book of Exorcisms, or the Ritual which contains exorcisms, in place of which the Pontifical or Missal can be handed over; of Acolytate, empty cruets, or at least one empty cruet, and, more probably, a candlestick with an extinguished candle. In place of the candlestick there cannot be a hand-candle or palmatory. S. R. C. 2194 ad 4, 4035 ad 5, 3315 ad 5; Roman Pontifical.

The matter of major orders is, in subdiaconate, only the handing over of the instruments, namely of the empty chalice with the empty paten placed upon it, both by precept and, probably, by necessity of the sacrament, consecrated, and, more probably, of the book of Epistles, i.e., the Missal, or of Sacred Scripture both of the New and Old Testament; in diaconate, the imposition of the right hand, and, more probably, also the book of the Gospels; in presbyterate, the imposition of hands and the chalice with wine, and the paten placed upon it with a host, and therefore to be handed over together because of the unity of the sacrifice. But which is essential, whether the handing over of the instruments alone, from the Florentine Decree for the Armenians, or the imposition of hands alone, which alone the Greek Church uses, or both, which the Latin Church uses, is disputed. Hence St. Alphonsus 741 says it is more probable that a Latin is validly ordained by the matter assigned to the Greeks, namely by the imposition of hands alone, and conversely; but probably invalidly. Therefore in practice the altogether safer opinion is to be chosen. Finally, the matter of episcopate is the imposition of hands and, probably, the imposition of the book of Gospels. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; Council of Carthage, can. 2; Roman Pontifical, de Consecr. episc. But the handing over of the book of Gospels does not seem essential; for when the book is handed to the elect, he is already called consecrated in the Pontifical. - Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, c. 4; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Pontifical; L. 739, 745-749; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 5; q. 37, a. 2, 4, 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 1, ad 2; Theology of Wurzburg 108; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 10; E. M.

What is the form of order? - As concerning the matter in major orders, so concerning the form of the sacrament the doctors do not agree among themselves. In Episcopate the words of the form are: Receive the Holy Spirit. There are those who add the prayers which follow in the manner of a Preface as if determining the aforesaid words toward episcopal consecration. Cf. n. 883, 4. For the various matter which is assigned in presbyterate, some consequently wish the form to consist in the words which are recited by the Bishop in the imposition of hands, others in the words which the Bishop pronounces in the handing over of the instruments, others in both words. In diaconate the words are: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Receive the power, etc. - In subdiaconate the words are: See, etc. Receive, etc. - But the words in the other orders are those which accompany the handing over of the instruments from the Roman Pontifical. In Ostiariate the words are: Thus act, etc. In Lectorate, in Exorcistate, in Acolytate the words are: Receive, etc. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 4; E. M.

Note: "In conferring sacred Orders it is required that by the same Bishop who pronounces the form, the matter be handed over, because, since such is the usage of the Church, thus Christ is judged to have instituted it: so St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 38, a. 1 ad 2.... But he teaches otherwise in the conferral of minor orders. - If orders are conferred by a Bishop, but with another celebrating Mass for him, the ordination will be valid, but illicit, as the Sacred Congregation declared in the year 1715 before Clement XI, and Innocent XIII confirmed in the Congregation held Feb. 5, 1722." L. 744; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 11, n. 7.

In the ordination of subdeacons, over two or three touching with the right hand the chalice with the paten, the form can be pronounced by the Bishop: See, etc. But in the ordination of priests the chalice with wine and water and the paten with the host must be handed to each, and the form must be repeated for each in the singular. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. Presb.

Authors are not lacking who hold that the form of the diaconate, in the imposition of the hand, is not those words: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., but the following prayer: Send forth upon them, we ask, O Lord, etc., which, while the Bishop pronounces it, he holds his right hand extended. Pesch, de Ordine, n. 630, 631, holds this opinion; I. Jorget, in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, v. Diacres. And Gasparri, de Ordine, Paris, 1894, n. 1044, 1049, holds that the form is the eucharistic prayer in the manner of a preface, in the middle of which now the imposition of the hand is made, which in the ancient liturgy preceded the simple prayer and the eucharistic prayer. But the common opinion, founded on the Council of Trent, sess. 23, de Ord., can. 4, holds that those words, Receive the power, etc., are the form, since they are not said by the Bishop in vain, and consequently the Holy Spirit is then given, that is, "then the sacrament is confected and its grace is conferred." St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 749.

In the ordination of the presbyterate the Bishop imposes hands three times: 1. when he imposes hands with physical touch, saying nothing; 2. when together with the priests he extends his hand over those to be initiated and pours forth the prayers: Let us pray, dearly beloved brothers, etc., which are the form; nor are there lacking those who hold that the form also is, or rather is, the prayer Hear us, etc., with the following Preface; 3. when after Communion he says: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Further, the necessary imposition of hands is not the first, as is certain among all, says St. Liguori 748, but either the second, when the Bishop extends hands with the priests, or the third, or both.

Those who contend that only the imposition of hands is the matter of the presbyterate take their argument from the Greeks, who are ordained by the imposition of hands alone; and they stand for the second imposition of hands, for after it and before the third imposition of hands, the ordained already consecrate the Eucharist together with the Bishop. And they say that by it there is also handed on at the same time power over the real and mystical Body of Christ, namely over the Eucharist to be confected and over sins to be absolved. Those who stand for the handing over of the instruments and the imposition of hands argue from the Florentine Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent, sess. 23, c. 4, and the ancient and constant practice of the Church as regards the imposition of hands. According to this opinion, by the handing over of the instruments there is handed on power over the real Body of Christ, and by the third imposition of hands there is handed on power over the mystical Body of Christ.

Hence there is another opinion, and it is to be held at least practically and consequently, that both the second and third imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments are the necessary matter of this sacrament. But the variety of the Latin and Greek Church is explained from the fact that Christ instituted the matter and form of this sacrament in general, and left to the Church the power of determining it in species, and of changing it for just causes, provided it uses things and words expressing that handing on of power, the effect of this sacrament. By the second imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments, power over the real Body of Christ is handed on; but by the third, power over the mystical Body of Christ is handed on, and each can be considered after the manner of one moral thing, as namely one imposition of hands, morally speaking, distributed into two parts.

Indeed the first imposition of hands also, and indeed with physical touch, seems necessary, and to constitute still one imposition of hands together with the second. The reason is that if the form is lacking in the first imposition of hands, bodily touch is lacking in the second imposition of hands. But if it is said that the first imposition of hands constitutes, together with the second imposition of hands, which is the continuation of the former, one imposition of hands, then every difficulty vanishes, and each is had: bodily touch and form. But each imposition of hands must precede the handing over of the instruments. Holy Office, May 3, 1899; July 4, 1900; Aug. 22, 1900; Monit. Ecclesiast., vol. 11, p. 148; vol. 12, p. 193, p. 291. For the form Receive the power, which accompanies the handing over of the instruments, completes the preceding imposition of hands with the prayer which accompanies it. Therefore it can well be said that by the first and second imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments, power over the physical Body of Christ is conferred; but by the third imposition of hands there is conferred on the priest power over the mystical body of Christ. "The Lord gave the disciples priestly power, as regards the principal act, before the Passion at the Supper... But after the Resurrection he gave them priestly power as regards the secondary act, which is to bind and loose." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 2. But physical touch suffices, even mediated, if, for example, the head of the ordinand is covered by a skullcap. Holy Office, June 22, 1890.

There are those who, relying on the Leonine Sacramentary of about the sixth century, hold that the form in the presbyterate is the prayer Hear us and the following Preface. Therefore, whether "in the ordination of a priest the extension of the hand both of the Bishop and of the priests prescribed by the Pontifical must be made not only within these words: Let us pray, dearly beloved brothers, up to Let us bend the knees; but also after the genuflection within the Prayer which begins: Hear us, up to the Preface, so that the genuflection only interrupts, but does not make that extension cease? Resp. In the ordination of priests the practice of the Roman Church is to be observed, which imposes hands on the ordinands only in the first prayer: LET US PRAY, DEARLY BELOVED BROTHERS." S. R. C., Feb. 18, 1843, Anicien.

Amen, which the Pontifical prescribes to be answered in the handing over either of matter or of sacred vestments in ordination, is to be said by the ordinand himself according to custom. S. R. C., Nov. 12, 1831, Marsor., ad 6.

A Bishop cannot be validly ordained except by another Bishop. But several things concur for such ordination in this order: namely the imposition of the book of Gospels over the neck and shoulders of the ordained, and the imposition of hands of three Bishops with the form corresponding to each: Receive the Holy Spirit. And these are essential. But the aforesaid words pronounced absolutely are referred only to episcopal consecration. Therefore the following prayers up to the anointing of the head do not seem also to be required, so that the aforesaid form may be restricted to episcopal consecration. But there follows the anointing of the head or crown of the ordained, the anointing of the hands of the ordained, after which the elect is called consecrated in the Pontifical. Then there is had the handing over of the staff, ring, and book of Gospels. Roman Pontifical; Wurzburg 108. - The consecration of a Bishop is valid if the imposition of the book is made not before, but after the imposition of hands. Holy Office, July 30, 1901. Likewise it is valid without the anointing of the head and hands, although this is not to be omitted. Trent, sess. 13, de Sacr. ord., c. 5; sess. 7, de Sacr. in gen., c. 13. "But whether the assistance of three Bishops is required for validity outside the case of necessity? It is certain 1. that this is required by necessity of precept from Nicaea I, c. 4, and from Carthage II, c. 7. It seems certain 2. that, from the commission of the Pontiff in a case of necessity, ordination is validly done by one Bishop... But to the question some say that three are altogether required... for thus Pope Damasus wrote in Epistle 4 against the Chorepiscopi: For that they are not Bishops who are ordained by fewer than three Bishops is evident to all. Others nevertheless deny... The reason is that in the Roman Pontifical only one of the Bishops is called consecrator, but the others assistants; for in other sacraments only one minister is required... Each opinion is probable, whence in practice the first must altogether be followed." L. 755; Brief of Pius IV, Aug. 11, 1562; Brief of Leo XIII Trans oceanum, Apr. 18, 1897; Holy Office, March 13, 1669; A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 580; vol. 29, p. 661; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 1207, 1208; Authentic Decrees of the S. R. C., n. 186; Benedict XIV, Constitution Qua sollicitudine, Feb. 21, 1725; de Syn., l. 13, c. 13; Kenrick, tr. 20, n. 12.

If in the ordination of a subdeacon and deacon the handing over of the book of Gospels and the book of Epistles has been omitted, it is to be supplied. If in the ordination of a priest the third imposition of hands has been omitted, it is likewise to be supplied. The reason is that although these rites are essential, they are nevertheless only integrally essential, i.e., for integrating the power already handed on as regards the secondary act. Therefore they must indeed be supplied, but the whole ordination must not be repeated. - If the handing over of the chalice and paten has been omitted in the ordination of a subdeacon, the imposition of the hand in the ordination of a deacon, the first or second imposition of hands or the handing over of the instruments in the ordination of a priest, the whole ordination of the priest and deacon is to be repeated under condition, and that of the subdeacon absolutely. The reason is that, as regards the ordination of a priest, probably the essential matter is the imposition of hands alone; probably the handing over of the instruments alone; probably both, according to the various opinions. As regards the ordination of a deacon, probably the essential matter is the imposition of the hand; probably the handing over of the book of Gospels; probably both, again according to the various opinions. But as regards the ordination of a subdeacon, the essential matter is either only the handing over of the chalice and paten, or that together with the handing over of the book of Epistles. Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2, 4, 5; L. 746 ff. But by this essential matter power is conferred for the principal act; and therefore, when it is lacking, the whole ordination is to be repeated; and when it is doubtful, the ordination is to be repeated under condition. - E. M.; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 1431.

Is physical contact with the instruments required for the validity of ordination? - Resp. In the affirmative according to the more common and more probable opinion, altogether to be held in practice. "But Escobar, n. 184, rightly says that it suffices for validity that the matter be touched with one hand. And likewise rightly with the common opinion the same Escobar, l.c., and Palao, p. 4, n. 20, etc., judge that mediated touch suffices, namely if the chalice, paten, or book is touched through some veil or glove; for one who touches thus is said in everyone's sense truly to touch." L. 743; La-Croix 2155. "The very words of the form," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 5 ad 3, "seem to show that touch of the matter is of the essence of the sacrament, because it is said: Receive this or that." For moral contact a Response of the S. R. C., Dec. 3, 1661, Galliar., is brought forward: "To the scruple of Brother Ephrem Chasteau... namely that he had not touched the chalice by physical touch in his ordination to the presbyterate." For the Sacred Congregation responded: "That he could continue celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice without any scruple, and with a conscience altogether safe." But in this Decision no mention is made of the paten, and besides there is question of a scruple. E. M.

Is the ordination of a priest valid who received the paten with the host, but the chalice without wine and water? - There are theologians who judge the value of such an ordination to be at least speculatively probable. But the opposite seems more probable; for the power for offering the sacrifice, which includes the offering of each species, is one and indivisible. Therefore power cannot be handed on for consecrating one species without power for consecrating the other. But in the case, power cannot be handed on for consecrating the species of wine, since this is lacking. Therefore. Hence such an ordination is altogether to be repeated under condition, as Cardinal de Lugo affirms that it was in fact repeated when a case of this kind occurred, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 30, and as it was repeated from the Decision of the Holy Office, Jan. 11, 1899; as also it was repeated in a case of defect of the host from the decision of the same Holy Office, July 6, 1898; Jan. 17, 1900. Ferraris, supplement, v. Ordo, Ordinatio, n. 6; Monit. Eccles., vol. 11, p. 329; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 557. And it would also have to be repeated under condition if in the chalice the water had been mixed with wine in equal quantity, as was also resolved by the S. C. de Sacram., Nov. 6, 1910. - L. 750; E. M.

Is one validly ordained who immediately touches only the chalice, but not the paten? - The first opinion affirms, because the chalice and paten then morally make one thing. The second opinion denies, because in the Roman Pontifical the touch of both chalice and paten is prescribed; and likewise because then the touch of the paten would be moral rather than physical. St. Alphonsus 753 says that the first opinion is more probable, but that the second opinion is not improbable, "and therefore is to be held in practice; for which reason such a cleric is to be reordained under condition." - S. C. C., May 28, 1796, decreed that the ordination should be repeated entirely under condition for a priest who touched only the paten placed over the chalice, but not the chalice itself. The Holy Office, March 17, 1897, declared valid the ordination of a priest who touched the paten with the host, but did not touch the chalice, although he attempted to touch it with his finger; and on March 8, 1895, of a priest who doubted whether he had touched the chalice. But, as is clear, there was question of mere scruple. Monit. Eccles., vol. 16, p. 374. - E. M.

Is one validly ordained who touches the host but not the paten; and who touches the chalice and paten but not the host? - Resp. To the first: in the affirmative with the common opinion, which seems most probable from St. Alphonsus 751. The reason is that the host and wine are the substantial matter of order, by which power over the Body of Christ is principally signified, and the chalice and paten are used from the precept of the Church for decency alone. Besides, by touching the host he already at least mediately touches the paten, and mediated physical touch certainly suffices. Therefore practically one can well acquiesce. Holy Office, July 22, 1892. - To the second: also in the affirmative, with the common and truer opinion. The reason is 1. because then the host is touched through the paten; but immediate touch of the host is not prescribed by the Church, but only of the paten, as is clear from the Pontifical; 2. because wine in the chalice is never touched immediately; therefore neither is it required that the host be touched immediately. This opinion from the same holy Doctor 752 can well be called morally certain. Therefore again practically one can acquiesce. Holy Office, Jan. 17, 1900. - La-Croix 2152, 2153; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 2178; E. M.

Is the ordination of a priest valid who did not touch the chalice and paten while the form was being pronounced, but immediately after? - Resp. In the affirmative; the reason is that although physical union is not had, nevertheless moral union is had; but while moral union stands, the whole reason of the sacramental sign subsists. This is confirmed from the common authority of theologians; for although the opposite opinion has some authors for itself, nevertheless it is now so commonly abandoned that it seems to lack every probability. Likewise the ordination is valid if someone physically touches the paten with the host and then the chalice, or conversely, while the form lasts, as can easily happen while someone attempts to touch both; and also if by this attempt he lifts the paten from the chalice. Cf. 322; Holy Office, March 17, 1897; Jan. 17, 1900; D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 3, n. 253; Busembaum 757; de Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 33; E. M.

Is he validly ordained to whom in subdiaconate there was given not an empty chalice, but one full of wine and water? - That ordination is probably valid. For although the chalice was full of wine and water, nevertheless from the intention of the ordaining Bishop ordaining him to the subdiaconate, it was sufficiently limited so that only the chalice according to itself was given, as contradistinguished from any content whatever. Therefore the chalice, although full, as subject to that intention and handed on in that way, still signified the diminution of power which the subdeacon receives in his ordination, which an empty chalice signifies better. Therefore from the defect of emptiness one cannot certainly argue a defect of valid ordination, but only illicit ordination, if that defect culpably happened. Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 30, n. 5; E. M.

Whether and how must defects committed in ordination be supplied? - If the defect is concerning accidentals, e.g., if the anointing of the hands of the priest to be initiated was lacking, then it must be supplied as soon as possible by the same Bishop, if this can be done, otherwise by another, and supplied secretly if it was hidden, to avoid scandal and disturbance of others. If one thus ordained would not take care that a defect of this kind be supplied, or before the supplying would minister in the order received, he would sin gravely or lightly according as the defect is grave or light. Nevertheless, if instead of oil of catechumens, in the anointing of the hands, oil of the sick was used, nothing is to be repeated. Holy Office, July 22, 1874. If the Bishop alone imposed hands, the imposition of hands of the priests will not have to be supplied. S. C. de P. F., Aug. 6, 1840, C. n. 1195.

If the defect is concerning essentials, namely concerning matter and form, the defect must altogether be supplied under grave obligation. If the sacrament consists of a double matter and form, as in the ordination of priesthood, according at least to the probable opinion of several, then if the defect is in the preceding part, namely in the handing over of the chalice and paten, or in the second imposition of hands, certainly the whole sacrament is to be repeated, because power over the mystical Body of Christ is founded on power over the real Body of Christ; but otherwise if the defect is in the posterior part, namely in the last imposition of hands, because the power toward the true Body of Christ has already been handed on independently of the subsequent part. And thus also in the ordination of a deacon, if the presentation of the book of Gospels has been omitted, it is to be supplied. Cf. 883.

But the Salmanticenses, c. 2, n. 32, say that this indeed is to be held in the ordination of presbyterate and episcopate, but not of other orders; because in them, if there is probability for the validity of the received order, it is not required to supply the defect, since in the priesthood afterward to be received all their power is received. But this is not to be admitted, at least practically. For C. Presbyter, de Sacram. non iterand., speaking of the ordination of deacons, the Pontiff says that if the imposition of hands has been omitted, it is altogether to be repeated, although it is probable that the handing over of the book alone is of the essence. And when doubt occurs about the validity of the other orders also, it is prescribed that they again be conferred under condition. S. C. C., Aug. 3, 1724, etc.

St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 35, a. 2, says these things: "It must be said that it is not of the necessity of superior orders that someone first have minor orders, because the powers are distinct, and one, as regards its own nature, does not require another in the same subject. And therefore even in the primitive Church some were ordained priests who had not first received inferior orders; and nevertheless they could do all things which the inferior orders can, because the inferior power is comprehended in the superior power, as sense in intellect and a duchy in a kingdom. But afterward by the constitution of the Church it was determined that one should not thrust himself into the greater orders who had not first humbled himself in lesser offices. And from this it is that those who are ordained by leap according to the canons, C. Tuae litterae, de Cler. per salt. promoto, are not reordained, but that which had been omitted from the preceding orders is conferred on them."

From the aforesaid C. Tuae Litterae, a priest who by leap was made priest from subdeacon is commanded to be ordained deacon. And, while doubt stood about the ordination of a certain priest to the diaconate, the Holy Office defined on Jan. 20, 1875 and Jan. 26, 1898, that this ordination was to be repeated under condition in that priest. Likewise, while doubt stood about the ordination of subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate, the same Holy Office decreed on Aug. 1, 1697, that all these were to be repeated under condition. - Canon Sollicitudo 1, D. 52; Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n. 7; Constitution Pastor bonus, Apr. 13, 1744, § 18; Suarez, de Censur., d. 31, s. 1, n. 53.

A defect concerning the validity of the sacrament is to be supplied at the time established by the Church from the cited C. Presbyter. But it must be said otherwise if there were an accidental defect. But Tamburini, l. 7, c. 5, § 2, n. 13; La-Croix 2200, and others probably say that if an order is repeated under condition because of doubt alone, or some ceremony, it can be repeated on any day and by any Bishop. And when doubts of this kind occur, it is in fact customary to grant that the repetition of ordination under condition can be made by any Catholic Bishop, secretly, at any time of the year, and in a private chapel. - L. 757-759; La-Croix 2220 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 30, n. 2; E. M.

Does one lacking an order licitly and validly exercise the acts of the order? - "One lacking the order of priesthood or episcopate would invalidly exercise their duties. But those lacking other orders exercise them licitly, if the orders are minor; illicitly if they are major. Hence a cleric sins gravely who without order solemnly exercises the office of deacon or subdeacon, and incurs by the very fact irregularity and excommunication, but this latter ferendae sententiae from C. 1 and 2, de Cleric. non ordin. min." L. 754.