On the Sacrament of Order

To n. 880.

Since it is altogether certain that Order generally and without any distinction is a sacrament, from this it must be concluded that not only the presbyterate and diaconate are sacraments, but also the subdiaconate and minor orders. "Whence... it is necessary that in all of them a character be imprinted." St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 35, a. 2, corpus; q. 37, a. 5.

But since the episcopate is at the summit, or in the enlarged grade of the priesthood, it seems certain that the episcopate is a sacrament. Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 3, 4; canon 4, 6.

And as regards the subdiaconate and minor orders, that they are sacraments is the far more probable and truer opinion, since it is logically altogether more conformable to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, sess. 23, both in the Chapters and in the Canons, and to the doctrine of the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, which is asserted, altogether gratuitously, to be of no value, nor does this seem capable of being affirmed with any solid probability.

"But the division of order is not of an integral whole into its parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potestative whole.... And therefore all orders are one sacrament." St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, a. 1, ad 2.

Nor certainly are there solid arguments against the asserted sacramental nature of the aforesaid orders, namely that they lack divine institution, that they lack matter and form, that they lack efficacy of grace; because such orders before the third century are never named, nor is imposition of hands had in them; and because there is one distinction of them in the Latin Church and another in the Greek Church. St. Alphonsus, book 6, n. 735, paragraph Patet; St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, aa. 2, 4, 5.

1. The proposed thesis, as is evident, does not concern Order in general: whether it is a sacrament. Luther, Illyricus, Chemnitz, and other Innovators denied it, but it is a most certain truth from Sacred Scripture and likewise from divine Tradition. And the very clear definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 23, canon 3, is indubitable and in no way controverted: "If anyone shall have said that Order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord, or is some human fiction devised by men inexperienced in ecclesiastical matters, or is only a certain rite of choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments, let him be anathema."

2. Nor likewise, in the proposed thesis, is it a question of the simple priesthood and of the diaconate. Concerning the simple priesthood: for the order of priests is divided in two, says Pope Anacletus, namely of Bishops, who are called first priests, and of presbyters, concerning whom Rabanus says: presbyters are men of the second order.

It is a most certain truth that the presbyterate, insofar as it is distinguished from the episcopate, is a sacrament. The Council of Trent, sess. 23, canon 1, affirms this in express words concerning the priesthood, at the same time declaring its intimate nature: "If anyone shall have said that in the New Testament there is not a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not some power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord, and of remitting and retaining sins; but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or that those who do not preach are not priests, let him be anathema."

In canon 2 the Council likewise affirms that besides the priesthood there are other orders; and therefore that the priesthood is an order, and the primary or supreme order of all, since all other orders are directed to it. "If anyone shall have said that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church orders, both greater and lesser, through which, as through certain grades, one tends to the priesthood, let him be anathema." Then follows canon 3, already related, in which the Council affirms that Order, or sacred ordination, is a sacrament. Therefore either the presbyterate most certainly is a sacrament, or order is not a sacrament.

3. Likewise it is a theologically certain truth that the diaconate is a sacrament. For the same Council of Trent says in canon 4: "If anyone shall have said that through sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not given, and therefore that Bishops say in vain: Receive the Holy Spirit; or that through it a character is not imprinted, or that one who was a priest can again become a layman, let him be anathema." But in the ordination of a deacon the aforesaid words also are said. Therefore in it also the Holy Spirit is given, and grace is conferred; and consequently, because it is a rite conferring grace, it is a sacrament.

Moreover, in canon 6 it is said: "If anyone shall have said that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of Bishops, Presbyters, and Ministers, let him be anathema." But among the several orders of ministers which the Council of Trent itself enumerates in chapter 2, from porter to deacon, the principal ones are deacons, who consequently are at least principally designated by the aforesaid canon 6. But again, the aforesaid hierarchy divinely instituted, according to the same Council of Trent, chapter 4, in reality is nothing other than the sacrament of order. Therefore there can be no doubt that the diaconate is a sacrament.

4. But from these things which have just been set forth, by logical deduction it follows that both the episcopate and the subdiaconate and the other minor orders are sacraments; concerning these alone there is a question in our thesis, because concerning these alone among Catholic doctors is the matter disputed.

5. And certainly, first, if Order generally and without any distinction is a sacrament, all orders consequently are a sacrament, since otherwise that Tridentine assertion, canon 3, "Order is truly and properly a sacrament," would be very equivocal. This assertion indeed does not distinguish between order and order in such a way that it includes the presbyterate and diaconate, but excludes the subdiaconate and the other minor orders, or even the episcopate if it is held as a distinct order. And if certainly that indefinite proposition "Order is a sacrament" includes the diaconate, as in reality it includes it, by the same reason it must include all the other orders. The logical reason for the inclusion of the diaconate in that indefinite proposition certainly can be no other than because it is a true order. But the other orders also, according to the Council of Trent, are true orders. Therefore they also are included.

6. And this reasoning is confirmed from the Council of Florence. For after it had said altogether generally and without any distinction: the sixth Sacrament is that of order, it immediately adds explicitly the presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, and the other orders. Therefore all are the sixth sacrament of order. And then it adds: the ordinary minister of this sacrament is the Bishop. Therefore this sacrament also has an extraordinary minister. But the extraordinary minister is only of the subdiaconate and minor orders; for concerning the diaconate the matter is very doubtful, although concerning the subdiaconate also there are authors both affirming and denying. Therefore all these orders are a sacrament.

And finally at the end the Council says: "The effect of this sacrament is increase of grace, so that someone may be a suitable minister." But the Council previously explicitly mentioned the ministries of the minor orders. Nor indeed can there be doubt that this is the right interpretation of the Council of Florence also from an extrinsic reason. For almost everything has been copied word for word from the Opuscule of St. Thomas On the Articles of Faith and the Seven Sacraments. And St. Thomas teaches the opinion proposed by us.

7. But let us return to the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent proceeds gradually in this way in the Chapters. In chapter 1 it asserts the existence of the priesthood and sacrifice, and order is not named. In chapter 2 it distinctly commemorates and enumerates all the orders which from office serve the priesthood and are the various grades by which one ascends to the priesthood. But in chapter 3 it says: Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. Therefore, just as it is impossible to restrict this sentence of the Council to the priesthood, so in like manner it is impossible to restrict the same assertion to the priesthood and the diaconate. Evidently such a restriction would come only from a preconceived opinion, and against the mind and handed-down doctrine of the same Council.

8. And the Council proceeds in altogether the same way in the Canons. In canon 1 it affirms the existence of the priesthood, without naming order. In canon 2 it affirms, besides the priesthood, greater and lesser orders tending to the priesthood. In canon 3 it affirms that Order is a sacrament. Therefore Order in the third Canon cannot be understood as any other order than the order which is explained in the second Canon, and which, besides the priesthood, at the same time comprises greater and lesser orders, all of which tend to the priesthood.

9. Moreover the Council of Trent, chapter 4 of the same sess. 23, affirms that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of order is constituted by divine law in the Church. Now this hierarchy, according to the same Council, is constituted from Bishops and from the other ecclesiastical grades. But the other ecclesiastical grades are not only priests and deacons, but all those who are numbered in the preceding chapter 2, so that through them an ascent is made to the priesthood, namely from porter to deacon. Likewise the aforesaid hierarchy divinely constituted in the Church, according to the same chapter 4, comprises not only Bishops, but the remaining inferior orders, the other orders. But the remaining orders, the other orders, are not only the presbyterate, nor only the presbyterate and diaconate, but all other orders enumerated by the Council itself in the preceding chapter 2. Therefore all are divinely instituted; and if they do not lack divine institution, they all are sacraments.

10. This indeed is expressly confirmed by canon 6: "If anyone shall have said that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers, let him be anathema." Ministers in this canon 6, which corresponds to chapter 4, are all those who are ministers in the same chapter 4; and these are all those whom it pertains to Bishops to ordain, and therefore all, namely presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, and the others. For it does not pertain to Bishops to ordain only presbyters and deacons.

Likewise Ministers in canon 6 are all those who pertain to the orders of ministers, which are in the most ordered disposition of the Church, as is had in chapter 2, and which comprise, according to the same chapter, all greater and lesser orders. Moreover, if the Council of Trent had truly wished to restrict the ecclesiastical hierarchy instituted by ordination to deacons, why, in place of saying "ministers," which is suitable to all ministers, did it not say "deacons"?

11. And if another proof is still needed, our conclusion is confirmed not a little from the fact that all the Theologians of the Council of Trent, with one only excepted, commonly attributed the nature of a true and properly so-called sacrament to the subdiaconate and minor orders. And consequently, as the very distinguished de Augustinis observes, the Tridentine Fathers, by approving the schema of doctrine and canons concerning the sacrament of order, which did not depart from the common opinion of theologians, yielded to this same opinion. De Ordine, art. 6, 2nd ed., Rome, 1887.

12. His Eminence Cardinal Louis Billot, in his treatise on Order, establishes this thesis XXIX: "The fullness of the sacrament of Order is in the Priesthood, but participation is in the orders of ministers. Wherefore even inferior ordinations are sacramental and imprint a character; nevertheless this is proposed as theologically certain only concerning the diaconate, but concerning the rest only as more probable and more consonant with the definitions of the Councils." Consequently His Eminence the Cardinal proves this thesis briefly indeed, but invincibly, especially from the Council of Florence, from the Council of Trent, and from St. Thomas.

13. And it is useful here to hear Peter Canisius, who, explaining against the heretics the summary of Catholic doctrine, with no controversy raised, simply affirms that all orders are sacraments. These are the very words of Canisius:

"What is the Sacrament of Order? It is that by which singular grace and spiritual power are handed over to certain persons, so that they may perform an office in the Church by profession. That is, the Sacrament through which, as through a door, there necessarily enter the legitimate dispensers of the mysteries and utterances of God, ministers of Christ and of the Church: Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and all finally who are rightly and with authority engaged in undertaking ecclesiastical offices. For no one, as Scripture testifies, takes or ought to take honor to himself, namely of exercising the ministries of the Church, except he who is called by God, as Aaron; that is, unless he has been initiated by the visible sacrament of ordination, and has been legitimately ordained by the Bishop, and sent to the work of a certain ministry, which he performs in the Church according to his state, according to the laws of divine and Apostolic tradition." Canisius, Opus Catechisticum, or On the Summary of Christian Doctrine, on Order, I.

"How many grades does this Sacrament contain in itself? Generally indeed it contains the minor orders and the major orders: namely the four minor orders, of Porters, Readers, Exorcists, and Acolytes; but the three major, namely of Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters. Moreover, among presbyters some greater and some lesser are found instituted by Christ." Canisius, loc. cit., IV.

14. And similarly from the Catechism published by command of Pius X on October 18, 1912, the sacrament of Order comprises all orders, both greater and lesser; and all orders, minor and major, pertain to the sacred hierarchy, nn. 397, 399, 400. And altogether the same was had in the other Catechism prescribed for the Roman Province by the same Pius X, June 14, 1905, part 4, chap. 8, where it is said that the Sacrament contains various grades of Orders, namely the presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, and minor Orders, from which the sacred hierarchy results.

15. Against this opinion the argument which is taken from the diverse numbering and distinction of orders in the Latin and Greek Church is indeed very weak. For they say: whatever the case may be, whether in the age nearest the Apostles the Greek Church had all minor orders, which Morinus indeed denies, now certainly it admits no other orders below the diaconate except the subdiaconate and lectorate, but the rest it has never numbered in its Euchologies for a thousand years and more.

Although Morinus denies that the Greek Church had minor orders from the time nearest the Apostles, others nevertheless affirm it, and Hallier proves it by several arguments.

And certainly an ancient author of the work On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy commemorates minor orders besides the subdiaconate and lectorate, and likewise the ancient author of the Letter to the Antiochenes, if St. Dionysius is not the true author of the former and St. Ignatius Martyr of the latter. The Synod of Laodicea also commemorates them; and St. Epiphanius numbers Exorcists and Doorkeepers among ecclesiastical ministers. Cf. Wirceburgenses, n. 54.

16. And if afterwards and in the present all minor orders in the Greek Church are not conferred individually, it certainly withdrew from the ancient custom in the course of time, which Innocent IV reprehends in the Greeks. Although it can be said that only the exorcistate is neglected by the more recent Greeks; the acolytate and porterate are conferred together with the subdiaconate, as is drawn from the very form of the subdiaconate which is used by the Greeks. Hence Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, concerning the rites of the Greeks, says that a Greek cleric, through the subdiaconate conferred in the Greek rite, is judged to have received the acolytate and porterate. Therefore these orders exist among the Greeks, although they are not conferred separately. And from Gabriel of Philadelphia it is established that the exorcistate also is conferred by other Orientals. Cf. Wirceburgenses, nn. 54, 55, 58, 59, 60.

17. But the diversity of the Latin and Greek Church in the essential rite of the sacraments is well explained from this, that Christ did not determine this rite in its lowest species. Hence among the Greeks, Copts, and Ethiopians the imposition of hands alone has been preserved. But the Latin Church added to it, for a certain greater signification and expression, the handing over of instruments, which alone it constituted for the subdiaconate and the other inferior orders.

18. Moreover, as regards the Greek Church, those things have force which are soon to be said concerning the Latin Church. For they say that before the third century the aforesaid orders, concerning which the whole controversy is, are never named before the third century: for first they are named by Pope Cornelius in the Letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, around the year 251.

19. But it can easily be answered that all the inferior orders were always implicit in the supreme order of ministers, that is, in the diaconate; and that it was left to the disposition of the Church to decide their explicit conferral in part or in whole, according as it would seem expedient. Whence St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, a. 2, ad 2, says: "that in the primitive Church, because of the small number of ministers, all the inferior ministries were committed to deacons... nevertheless all the aforesaid powers were present, but implicitly in the one power of the deacon. But afterwards divine worship was enlarged, and the Church handed over explicitly in diverse orders what it had implicitly in one order. And according to this the Master says that the Church instituted other orders." Namely, it did not institute them by its own authority, but conferred separately on several persons those instituted by the Lord, as the number of the faithful increased.

20. But it is one thing that the aforesaid orders first are found by us commemorated by Pope Cornelius; it is another thing that then for the first time they were introduced into the Church. Indeed, Pope Cornelius, by enumerating all by name, both greater and lesser orders, and affirming that they are present at Rome, implicitly affirms that they had already existed for a long time.

St. Justin Martyr, in the second century, died about the year 161, in the First Apology for Christians, n. 67, Migne, vol. 6, cols. 429-430, commemorates deacons and a reader, whose office it was to read in the Christian assembly the commentaries of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets: "Eita pausamenou tou anaginoskontos, then, when the reader has ceased..."

Likewise Tertullian, in the second century, died about the year 199, De Praescriptione, XLI, Migne, vol. 2, col. 57: "One man is bishop today, another tomorrow; today he is deacon who tomorrow is reader; today he is presbyter who tomorrow is layman: for they impose priestly duties even on laymen."

21. Hence it will not be very difficult to assert their divine institution, not without solid foundation. For their institution could well have been handed down by oral communication from Christ the Lord. And that this happened is to be said from the rule of Augustine. Namely, "What the universal Church holds, and has not been instituted by Councils, but has always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down only by Apostolic authority."

But that this rule suits our matter is manifest. For although no Council is found in which the orders lower than the diaconate were instituted, nevertheless we know that they have always been in the Church from the beginnings of the Church, and have always been constantly retained. And indeed the Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 2, treating of the seven orders, says: "Not only of priests, but also of deacons, the Sacred Scriptures make open mention, and they teach in most grave words those things which are chiefly to be attended to in their ordination; and from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the proper ministries of each one of them, namely of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter, are known to have been in use, although not in equal grade. For the subdiaconate is referred to the major orders by the Fathers and sacred councils, in which we very frequently read also concerning the other inferior orders."

But the aforesaid beginning of the Church, according to the Council itself, is referred to the times of the Apostles. For in the same session, chap. 17, de Reform., the Council wills "that the functions of holy orders from the diaconate to the porterate, laudably received in the Church from the times of the Apostles, and for some time interrupted in many places, be recalled to use according to the sacred canons."

22. The divine institution of all ministers can be explained in three ways. The first mode, which St. Alphonsus hands down, book 6, n. 735, derives the institution of ministers from the very institution of the priesthood, in which it was implicitly contained. After citing the text of Luke 22: "Do this in commemoration of Me," the Holy Doctor soon adds: "Where, although only the priesthood was ordained, nevertheless in it was contained the ordination of other ministers who serve Priests." And St. Thomas gives the reason, "because the inferior power is comprehended in the superior virtue, as sense in intellect and dukedom in kingdom." Supplement, q. 35, n. 5; q. 37, a. 1, ad 2 and ad 3; a. 2; a. 4. Cf. Scavini, Milan, 1874, on the Sacrament of Order, n. 528.

Another mode is brought forward by the very learned Struggl, tract IX, q. 3, art. 2, n. 22. The aforesaid Author says: "All Orders, namely the diaconate, subdiaconate, and all the other minor orders, were instituted by Christ, at least by the general institution of ministers of the Church."

Finally, the third mode is if it is said that all inferior orders were comprehended and instituted in the diaconate, and then by the power of the Church were separated from one another, as we have already heard from the Angelic Doctor. And hence it is evident that this difficulty of divine institution, as regards the subdiaconate and the other minor orders, is the same for the diaconate, concerning whose divine institution there is indeed certainty from the Council of Trent, but when and how it was instituted by Christ is not explained in particular in the Sacred Scriptures. Indeed, not even concerning the episcopate, whose divine institution is certain, is it certain when and how Christ instituted this sacrament. It is probably said that this was after the Resurrection, when He constituted the Apostles Pastors of the Church. For during those forty days Christ showed Himself alive, appearing and speaking of the kingdom of God. And, after the Resurrection, He also gave to the Apostles the power of remitting sins, when He had already instituted the sacrifice and priesthood at the Last Supper.

23. And could not also the exorcistate and lectorate have been instituted when Christ, before the institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper, sent His disciples two by two, conferring on them power of casting out demons and preaching the word of God? In Luke 9:1-2: "And having called together the twelve Apostles, He gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. And He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick." And 10:17: "And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Thy name." And in Mark 6:7: "And He called the twelve and began to send them two by two, and He gave them power over unclean spirits." And below, v. 12: "And going forth they preached that men should do penance." And v. 30: "And the Apostles coming together to Jesus reported to Him all things which they had done and taught." They had acted by expelling demons; they had taught by instructing the peoples, by which they were disposed and prepared for receiving the mystery of the Eucharist, which was to be instituted later. Besides, could we not also assert the institution of the acolytate and subdiaconate in the mission of the Apostles for preparing the place for eating the Pasch, indeed for instituting and receiving the Eucharist?

24. This objection concerning divine institution having been removed, another objection is to be removed from the efficacy of grace, which they say is not had in the subdiaconate and the other inferior orders, since in them the imposition of hands is not had, by which grace is conferred.

There can certainly be no doubt that grace is conferred by the imposition of hands in the Episcopate, in the Presbyterate, and in the Diaconate. Nevertheless it is altogether false that grace is not also conferred in the other orders because they do not contain the imposition of hands. For in the other orders there is had the handing over of instruments with the corresponding words; and therefore matter and form are in no way lacking in them, as is had from the Council of Trent itself, from the Council of Florence, in the Decree for the Armenians, from the Roman Pontifical, and from the Roman Catechism.

25. But that assertion is gratuitous. Nowhere is it said that grace in order is not given except by the imposition of hands. And from the fact that by this imposition of hands grace is conferred in some orders of a superior grade, it does not follow that it is not conferred by other rites in other orders of an inferior grade. Then the assertion seems false from the Council of Trent itself, which does not attribute grace in this sacrament either exclusively or simply to the imposition of hands, but generally to the signs by which the sacrament is effected.

By this assertion it again appears from the Council of Trent that Order as a sacrament comprises all orders, both major and minor. Behold the words of the Council, chapter 3, sess. 23: "Since by the testimony of Scripture, Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that through sacred ordination, which is effected by exterior words and signs, grace is conferred, no one ought to doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church."

26. Moreover, according to the Roman Pontifical, the Bishop "warns those to be ordained that they touch the instruments in the handing over of which a character is imprinted." From this warning it is evident both that all orders are sacraments and that the only rite efficacious of grace is not the imposition of hands.

And the Roman Catechism, n. 10, speaking of the Priesthood itself, has these very grave words, which well show how false is the assertion of the adversaries: "Wherefore the Bishop, offering to him who is ordained Priest the chalice with wine and water and the paten with bread, says: Receive the power of offering sacrifice, etc.; by which words the Church has always taught that, while the matter is presented, the power of consecrating the Eucharist is handed over, with a character impressed on the soul, to which grace is joined for duly and legitimately undertaking that office." And n. 34 attributes spiritual character to all orders.

Finally the Council of Florence, while not excluding the imposition of hands, brings forward no other rite of the sacraments except the handing over of instruments; and to this rite it evidently annexes the efficacy of grace, which, after the orders have been enumerated and their matter and form, it explicitly affirms at the end.

27. But the adversaries say that the Council hands down only an accidental rite. This assertion is false. For the Council declares at the beginning that the Sacraments "are effected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament, with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."

It explains these three substantial things for the individual sacraments, and therefore also for order hands down substantial matter and form; whence again it is established that all orders, according to the Council of Florence, are sacraments, since it assigns the substantial matter and form of all. Moreover that it is not a question of a merely accidental rite, but of a substantial one, is established from the assertion of the Council itself, since it says: "The sixth sacrament is that of order, whose matter is that by the handing over of which the order is conferred." Therefore if order is conferred through the handing over of this matter, this handing over is altogether substantial.

28. But the adversaries press by another way, asserting that the Decree of the Council of Florence is of no value, since in it there is a question of a certain mere Instruction of the Armenians, for whose union the aforesaid Decree was issued. But it is one thing that this Decree does not contain in this matter a dogmatic definition ex cathedra; it is another thing, quite different, that the Decree reports only a certain mere opinion, and indeed a false one, according to the same adversaries. For by this Decree, with the Sacred Council approving and the orators themselves also consenting, the doctrine of the orthodox faith was proposed to the Armenians under a compendium.

The Decree is contained in the Bull of Eugene IV, Exultate Deo: "It was given at Florence in a public synodal Session, solemnly celebrated in the greater Church." As is had in § 3, the faith of the orators was examined beforehand, both concerning "other things pertaining to the orthodox faith and the rites of the universal Church" and concerning "the Seven Sacraments of the Church." And then in § 4 it is said: "We judged it expedient, lest in the future any hesitation concerning the truth of the faith be able to exist among those Armenians themselves, and that they may think the same in all things with the Apostolic See, and that the union itself may persevere stable and perpetual, without any scruple, that by this Decree, with this sacred Florentine Council approving, and the same orators also consenting to this, We should hand down to those orators, under a certain brief compendium, the truth of the orthodox faith which the Church professes concerning the aforesaid matters."

And then in § 9, where the treatment of the Sacraments begins, these things are set before the exposition of the doctrine of the Church: "Fifth, for the easier instruction of the same Armenians, both present and future, We reduce the truth of the ecclesiastical sacraments into this very brief formula." Since these things are so, it is indeed not understood how modern writers can hold this Decree as of no value, or at most as a certain practical instruction and in no way doctrinal.

Moreover, a practical Instruction can at most be understood as regards the rite to be observed, but in no way as regards the intrinsic nature of order. And our proposed thesis concerns this, not that. For in the thesis it is not a question of the rite by which orders are conferred, but whether orders are sacraments, consequently instituted by Christ Our Lord, by whatever rite at last they may be conferred.

Nor finally is this to be passed over: the doctrinal value of the Decree can in no way be diminished from the fact that, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it prescribes that water be mixed with wine before consecration. For THAT RITE ALSO PERTAINS TO DOCTRINE. For thus it is said in the Decree: "But water is therefore mixed, because according to the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, presented earlier in the disputation, it is believed that the Lord Himself instituted this Sacrament in wine mixed with water."

If, according to the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Doctors, Christ thus instituted this Sacrament, this institution of the Sacrament pertains especially to the doctrine of the Sacrament itself. And that a rite of this kind truly pertains most greatly to doctrine is evident also from the fact that the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, in its Decree of January 30, 1635, most gravely reprehends the Armenians omitting the aforesaid rite, "because water is mixed in the wine to be consecrated from Apostolic tradition, and it is believed from the testimonies of the Holy Fathers that Christ did this," and because the contrary rite of the Armenians "either involves the heresy of the Monophysites, or at least is most suspect of it." For the Armenians consecrate wine alone, so that through this they may show that there is only one nature in Christ the Lord. Do not these things pertain to the doctrine of orthodox Catholic faith?

29. It is worthwhile to hear those things which His Eminence Cardinal Louis Billot has concerning this question. For he says: "In very truth, only from the necessity of a prejudged cause could certain persons have been led to rejecting the norm of the Decree for the Armenians, whose full authority has always existed in the Church of God. Have theologians not been accustomed to adhere religiously to this Decree, while everywhere they bring it forward among the other rules from which it is not lawful to depart? Did not the Tridentine itself take from the same Decree many dogmatic formulas in the doctrine of the Sacraments?... It is established that all these were taken from the Decree for the Armenians, which is cited in the margins with the places of Scriptures, Canon Law, and preceding Councils, on which the Fathers of the Council relied in their definitions. Wherefore very few are those who have not feared to decline the authority of this Decree." De Ordine, questions XXXIV-XXXIX, Supplement, thesis XXX, § 1, n. 2. Thus the most learned Cardinal.

And the learned Spanish annotator of Gury's Compendium, Father Casajoana, S.J., says: "More truly,... all orders, both major and minor, are Sacraments according to the more probable and more common opinion. Thus Eugene IV teaches in the Decree to the Armenians; whose authority proves more than all the reasons of the opposite opinion." On Order, n. 699, Note.

30. Nor, as regards the subdiaconate, does the objection have force that it was not always a major and sacred order, but first began to be counted among the major and sacred orders under Urban II in the Council of Benevento in the year 1091, or under Innocent III in the year 1207.

If sacred and major order is understood from its intrinsic reason, namely insofar as it gives the spiritual power of serving more closely the sacrifice of the altar than those initiated in minor orders do, the subdiaconate was always in the Church of God a sacred and major order. For we have already heard from the Council of Trent that from the very beginning of the Church the proper ministries of each of the seven orders were in use. Likewise we have heard from the same Council that the subdiaconate is referred to the major orders by the Fathers; which words express an ancient and universal tradition, nor can they be referred to Fathers and Councils of later centuries, since they are uttered absolutely and in a general way, and are uttered after the other words concerning the use of the proper ministries of each of the seven orders from the very beginning of the Church.

31. But if sacred and major order is understood from another extrinsic reason, then certainly the subdiaconate was not always a sacred and major order; but nothing can be deduced from this against its sacramental nature.

Certainly the subdiaconate was not always a sacred order, this denomination being drawn from the vow of continence, which was not always annexed to it. Nor was it always a major order insofar as a subdeacon can be chosen as Bishop, which did not obtain except from Urban II and from Innocent III. For Urban permitted that sometimes, but very rarely, when opportunity required, and not without the permission of the Roman Pontiff or Metropolitan, a subdeacon could be chosen as Bishop, whom the ancient Canons had sanctioned should be assumed from the assembly alone of those who are constituted in sacred orders. But Innocent, from the fact that the subdiaconate was already counted among sacred orders, established that a subdeacon can freely be chosen as Bishop, just as a deacon or priest.

Nor finally is it a sacred order if sacred order is taken for a hierarchical order, hierarchy strictly taken. For in this way those belong to the hierarchy who obtain some jurisdiction or principate in the Church, of which kind are Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, as the Fathers Ignatius, Jerome, and Chrysostom teach.

32. Likewise, as regards minor orders, it is not a valid objection that their proper functions are slight and inferior. Nothing is inferior and slight, but on the contrary anything which of itself looks to divine worship, to the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, is a great and noble thing. And did not Christ Himself, the Savior of the human race, also exercise those functions, as the Master of the Sentences, book 4, dist. 24, and St. Bonaventure, Compendium Theologicae Veritatis, book 6, chap. 36, skillfully noted?

Therefore since the Lord Himself already used the sevenfold office of Orders, from His example the dignity of sacred orders shines forth still more. For Christ, says St. Bonaventure, exercised: the porterate, when He cast the sellers out of the temple, Matthew 21:12, and did not permit anyone to carry a vessel through the temple, Mark 11:16; the lectorate, when standing in the midst of the elders He read in the Synagogue, after taking the book of Isaiah, Luke 4:16 ff.; the exorcistate, when He freed those possessed by a demon, Luke 11:14-15; the acolytate, when He said: I am the light of the world, John 8:12; the subdiaconate, when He girded Himself with a towel and washed the feet of the disciples, John 13:4 ff.; the diaconate, when after supper He distributed His Body and Blood to His disciples, Luke 22:19-20; and the Priesthood, finally, when He offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and when at the Supper He changed bread into His Body and wine into His Blood.

33. It must now be said concerning the sacramental nature of the episcopate. That the episcopate is a sacrament is certainly established from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 3, where it establishes that Order is a sacrament. The Council proves this thus: "For the Apostle says: 'I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, through the imposition of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of sobriety.'"

Here the Apostle speaks to Timothy, and the imposition of hands made to him was ordination as Bishop, as Theophylact, Oecumenius, Anselm, and other interpreters of no low note affirm with Chrysostom. And St. Thomas, lecture 3 on 2 Timothy, explaining those words: "which is in thee through the imposition of my hands," says: "by whom namely he had been ordained Bishop; in which imposition of the hand the grace of the Holy Spirit was given to him." But the Apostle in that place, namely in 2 Timothy, chapter 1, treats of the offices proper to a Bishop, and the same is had in 1 Timothy, chapter 4.

34. Moreover the Council of Trent, after it has asserted generally that order is a sacrament in chapter 3, in the immediately following chapter 4 teaches that through order the sacred hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and other orders has been constituted, and that priests and especially bishops pertain to the hierarchical order. Therefore the sacred ordination of bishops also is a sacrament, as the sacred ordination of presbyters and of the remaining inferior orders is a sacrament.

35. Besides, according to canon 6 of the Council of Trent, the episcopate pertains to the hierarchy instituted by divine ordination; and likewise according to chapter 3 and canon 4, by the imposition of hands and the words, "Receive the Holy Spirit," grace is conferred. But the episcopate is conferred by this rite. Therefore, since in it there is had that threefold element intrinsically constitutive of a sacrament, a sensible sign, divine institution, and efficacy of grace, it must necessarily be concluded that the episcopate also is truly and properly a sacrament.

36. Since therefore there are seven orders, and each of them is a sacrament, it is asked in the last place whether there are seven orders and seven sacraments, or one order and one sacrament. To define this question it must be premised from the Angelic Doctor that a threefold whole is to be distinguished.

First, a whole is integral, which is divided into integral parts, which consequently individually do not receive the predication of the whole. And thus it cannot truly be said: the roof is the house; the vestibule is the house, etc.

The second is a universal whole, which is divided into subjective parts, of which each can be predicated separately, but which together receive the predication of the whole in the plural, not in the singular. And thus it is said: Peter is a man, Paul is a man; man is an animal, donkey is an animal; man is an animated body, donkey is an animated body. But it is not said: Peter and Paul are man, but they are several men; nor is it said: man and donkey are animal, are animated body, but they are several animals, several animated bodies.

Finally, the third whole is potestative, whose nature is this: that the whole according to the complete notion is in one, but in others there is some participation of it. And thus in a kingdom, although the whole fullness of power resides with the king, nevertheless the powers of ministers are not excluded, which are certain participations of royal power. "And so it is here: for the whole fullness of this sacrament is in one order, namely the priesthood, but in the others there is a certain participation of order. And this was signified in this, that the Lord said to Moses, Numbers 11:17: I will take of thy spirit and give it to them, that they may sustain with thee the burden of the people. And therefore all orders are one sacrament." St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, a. 1, ad 2 and ad 3.

37. And as all orders are a sacrament and one sacrament, so also the individual orders are a sacrament, "according to the mode by which a potestative whole is predicated of its parts, which is midway between a universal whole and an integral whole. For a universal whole is present to any part according to its whole essence and power, as animal to man and horse; and therefore it is properly predicated of the individual parts. But an integral whole is not in any part, neither according to the whole essence nor according to the whole power; and therefore in no way is it predicated of the parts, but in some way, although improperly, of all together, as if we should say that wall, roof, and foundation are a house.

"But a potential whole is present to the individual parts according to its whole essence, but not according to its whole power. And therefore in some way it can be predicated of any part, but not so properly as a universal whole. And in this way Augustine says that memory, intelligence, and will are one essence of the soul." St. Thomas, I, q. 77, a. 1, ad 1; namely because the essence of the soul exists whole in these powers, although not according to its whole power. And so here, as has already been said, the whole fullness of this sacrament is in the priesthood alone; in the others there is a certain participation of it; and from that also, to which the other orders are referred, the various orders are distinguished. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, a. 2.