Title XI: On the Times of Ordinations and the Quality of Those to Be Ordained

Latin source headnote: Sacred orders ought not to be conferred on Sundays or on the Saturday of Pentecost by anyone other than the Pope.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Bath.

Moreover, let it be permitted to no one except the Roman Pontiff to ordain subdeacons on Sundays, although they have permission on these days to celebrate the consecration of virgins dedicated to God and the conferral of minor orders. Indeed, on the Saturday of Pentecost it shall not be permitted to anyone to celebrate sacred orders, since they are celebrated in the following week after the grace of the Holy Spirit has been received.

Latin source headnote: A custom that sacred orders are conferred outside the established times is not valid.

The same, to the Bishop of Hereford.

Indeed, concerning the fact that you said it is customary in certain churches of Scotland and Wales, at the dedications of churches or altars, to promote clerics to sacred orders outside the fasts of the Four Times, we signify to your prudence that that custom, as hostile to ecclesiastical institution, is both detestable and utterly to be disapproved. And, unless the multitude and the ancient custom of the land were [the cause], those ordained in such a manner ought not to be permitted to minister in the orders they received. For among us those so ordained would be deposed, and those ordaining would be deprived of the authority to ordain. [But concerning that, etc.; cf. the following chapter.]

Latin source headnote: Minor orders can be conferred on feast days, but sacred orders ought to be conferred in the Four Times, or on Holy Saturday, or on the Saturday before Passion Sunday.

The same, to the same.

But concerning what you asked—whether it is permitted outside the fasts of the Four Times to promote some persons as doorkeepers, readers, exorcists, or acolytes, or even to promote subdeacons—we respond thus to your prudence: it is lawful for bishops to promote one or two persons to minor orders on Sundays and other feast days; but no bishop other than the Roman Pontiff is permitted to ordain anyone to the subdiaconate except in the Four Times, on Holy Saturday, or on the Saturday before Passion Sunday.

Latin source headnote: A secret criminal can be admonished not to be promoted to orders, but ought not to be prohibited.

The same.

From the tenor of your letters we have learned that N., a cleric, transgressed to such a degree that, if his sin were public, he would be degraded from the order that he received and could no longer be promoted to higher orders. But because you said that his sin was secret and private, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you impose upon him a worthy penance and counsel him that, after part of the penance has been performed, he use the order received and, remaining content with it, ascend no further to higher orders. Nevertheless, because the sin is secret, if he wishes to be promoted, you cannot and ought not for any reason to prohibit him. [Given at Benevento, on the fourth day before the Kalends of May.]

Latin source headnote: A religious ought not to be ordained contrary to the prohibition of his prelate.

Lucius III, to the Archbishop of Tours.

Through your report it has reached our ears that certain religious, having zeal for God, desire to be promoted to higher orders, thinking that a greater reward is to be accumulated the higher the office that they, placed in a greater grade, have executed; but their prelates contradict their desires. Therefore, your fraternity decided to inquire whether those constituted in lower orders ought, according to the good pleasure of their prelates, to whom the promotion is displeasing, to abstain from higher orders, or whether they may be promoted despite the resistance of their prelates.

We therefore respond thus to your question: it is more honorable and safer for subjects, by rendering the obedience owed to their superiors, to serve in a lower ministry than, with scandal to their superiors, to seek the dignity of grades. Nor is the desire of the subjects to be fostered in this matter, since it may be that their prelates know secret matters committed by them, from which it is established for the prelates that those subjects cannot be elevated with their conscience safe, because the kingdom of God is acquired not in the loftiness of grades, but in the breadth of charity.

Latin source headnote: A metropolitan is consecrated by all his suffragans, but a suffragan by three, at the metropolitan's command.

The same.

If an archbishop has met [his day of] death and another archbishop is to be ordained [having been elected], all the bishops of the same province shall assemble at the metropolitan see, so that he may be elected and ordained by them all. For it is fitting that the one who ought to preside over all of them be elected and ordained by all of them. The other bishops of the province, however, if it should be necessary, can, with the rest consenting, be ordained by three at the command of the archbishop; but it is better if he himself with them all elects the one who is worthy and all together consecrate the pontiff.

Latin source headnote: It says the same as in the preceding chapter.

From the Council of Arles.

Let no bishop presume to ordain a bishop without the metropolitan's permission, nor a metropolitan bishop without three or two bishops of the same province, in such a way that the other bishops of the province are admonished by letters so that they may signify by their reply that they have consented. But if any doubt has [arisen] between the parties, the metropolitan shall agree in the election with the greater number.

Latin source headnote: One ordained outside the proper times is suspended until a dispensation is granted to him, and the one ordaining is punished.

Urban III, to the Archbishop of Pisa.

Since certain Sardinian bishops, as has been set forth to us on your part, have not paid certain persons money that they were bound by oath to pay, and a certain bishop of that land celebrated orders on the day of the dedication of a church, although that day was not established for this purpose, and certain persons have also sometimes sworn that they ought not to speak to a brother or sister, father or mother, or furnish any assistance to them, your fraternity asked us what should be done concerning matters of this kind.

We, therefore, unwilling to deny what, with charity suggesting it, you appear to seek from us, respond to your discretion by the present letters that vengeance is to be taken against those bishops who transgressed their oath, more gravely to the extent that they are eminent in greater dignity and that by their example others could more easily be incited to similar acts. You ought, moreover, to correct by canonical discipline the bishop who celebrated orders on a day on which he ought not to have done so, and to render those ordained unable to exercise the orders received for so long as they do not obtain from us or our successors the grace of restoration. But those who swear not to speak to father, mother, sister, or brother, or to show them the assistance of humanity, are to be absolved from observance of that oath, since it is unlawful and contrary to all reason, although a suitable penance is to be enjoined upon them for having sworn wrongly.

Latin source headnote: Greeks ought not to be ordained by Latins, nor conversely, if they differ in the rite of ordaining.

Celestine III, to the Archbishop of Otranto.

Since, according to ecclesiastical rules and the institutions of the holy Pontiffs, sacred orders are to be conferred at certain times, certain Greek bishops, applying observance of their rite and custom to Latin clerics, indiscriminately promote them to sacred orders, which ought not to be conferred except in the Four Times. Indeed, as we learned from the report of John, the bearer of the present letters, when he had been presented to a certain Greek bishop by a certain lord whom he had served, so that he might celebrate divine offices in that lord's chapel, the same Bishop Cathamarsenis promoted him to the priesthood. His diocesan bishop afterwards believed that he should be suspended from the execution of the office or of the order received in such a manner.

That custom is indeed hostile to ecclesiastical custom, detestable, and utterly to be disapproved; and, unless the multitude and ancient custom were the cause, those so ordained ought not to be permitted to minister in the orders they received. For among us those so ordained would be deposed, and by the censure of the canons those ordaining would be deprived of the authority to ordain.

But because, as is said, in the regions of Calabria Latins are ordained by Greeks and Greeks by Latins according to the observance of the institution of each, and because your fraternity will be better able to discern whether this has been observed from antiquity, we have decided to commit the judgment of the same John to you. We command by apostolic writings, and by the authority of the present letters grant you power, that, after the truth and the observance of the custom have been more diligently learned—if any custom concerning these matters has been received by Latin clerics and approved until now—or if it should appear to you that you should discern otherwise concerning John himself, you do not delay in establishing, with the evasion of appeal ceasing, what you can establish with the salvation of his soul. You shall consider very carefully whether he is to be reordained or ought, without danger to his soul, to celebrate in the order thus received, with the addition, if you know anything that is to be added to complete the order. But we do not will that mixtures and customs of rites in orders be observed hereafter, nor that this case be taken as an example by others if you decide that a merciful dispensation should be granted to this man.

Latin source headnote: If a monk of one order receives the priesthood in a second order to which he passed, upon returning to the first order he will minister freely in it.

Innocent III, to the Abbot and Convent of Carilocum.

On your part it was disclosed to our apostolate that a certain monk of yours, transferring himself to the Black Monks and assuming their black habit there, was promoted to the order of priesthood in that habit. Hence, because on this point you doubted whether he ought to minister in the order thus assumed, we, resolving the scruple of doubt of this kind, command you by apostolic writings that, unless another canonical impediment stands in his way, you permit that monk freely to execute the office of priest. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: If a Greek subject to a Latin bishop is ordained by a Greek without the Latin's permission, execution of the order is forbidden to him; but if it was with permission, he is then tolerated.

The same, to C., Cardinal-Priest and legate of the Apostolic See.

As to the translation of a pontiff—(And below: [cf. c. 4, On the Office of a Legate, I.30.]) But concerning the matter on which you wished to consult us, namely that many Greek clerics dwelling in the dioceses of Latins receive from Greek bishops—not in the Four Times—sometimes all the orders together and sometimes a part of them, and are afterwards prohibited by Latin bishops from celebrating, we respond thus to your consultation: when a Greek cleric subject to a Latin bishop is ordained by a Greek pontiff, unless it is done by the mandate or permission of his bishop, execution of the order thus received is to be forbidden to him, as one ordained by another's pontiff without the mandate or permission of his own bishop.

But if, by the mandate or permission of his own prelate, he was ordained by a Greek pontiff according to the custom of the Greeks, although the Latin bishop who causes his clerics to be ordained by a Greek prelate is to be blamed, nevertheless, for as long as such a custom is tolerated by the Church, the cleric ought not to be impeded from executing the orders thus received. Nevertheless, on this point we have resolved at an opportune time to ordain, with the counsel of our brothers, what shall seem honorable.

Latin source headnote: One ordained by the Pope is not promoted to higher orders without the Pope's permission.

The same, to the Bishop of Modena.

Since in distributing [orders the canonical constitutions distinguish certain times, which approved custom has taught are to be observed especially concerning sacred orders, we are compelled both to wonder and to be disturbed because, as we have learned from many and as is circulated in common report, the infamous Bishop of Bologna presumed to ordain Albert, bishop-elect of Imola, as deacon and priest at the same time. But because we are unwilling to leave uncorrected things that are attempted contrary to the canonical constitutions—especially where canonical laws are taught with greater renown—lest they pass as an example to presumptuous persons, since these things not only do not lack the mark of presumption and foolishness but also that of ambition and depravity, we command your discretion by apostolic writings, under precept, that you inquire most diligently into the truth concerning these matters, nevertheless hearing the excuses of the one ordaining and of the one ordained, if perhaps they decide to allege any, so that, instructed by your report, we may proceed more fully and securely in the business itself.] For we remember that this was humbly sought from us and mercifully granted: that, because the aforesaid A. was a subdeacon of the Roman Church, we would command him to be promoted by the Bishop of Bologna. [Given at the Lateran, 1200.]

Latin source headnote: Two sacred orders cannot be conferred upon the same person on one day, or on two days with the fast continued.

The same, to the same and to Master H., our subdeacon.

We have received your letters in reply concerning the disorderly ordination of [A.], bishop-elect of Imola, whom [G.], Bishop of Bologna, ordained as deacon on the preceding Saturday and as priest on the following Sunday with the fast continued. How greatly each of them transgressed in this matter is clearly understood by one who considers it prudently. For if it was not permitted to confer both orders upon him on the same day, by equal reason it was not permitted that one order be conferred on one day and the other on the next with the fast continued. For, because of the continuation of the fast, by canonical fiction, whether the morning of Sunday is drawn back to Saturday or the evening of Saturday is referred to Sunday, certainly morning with evening, or evening with morning, will be said to pertain to the same day. For if, insofar as this point of necessity is concerned, morning is referred to one day and evening to another, why would continuation of the fast be necessary, since they are understood to be fasting both on Saturday before supper and on Sunday before the midday meal?

But lest, if we passed over a deed of this kind in silence, others, deeming it lawful, should attempt to do similar things, and thus the perversity of the deed be drawn into an example by posterity, we therefore will that the aforesaid Bishop of Bologna, so that he may be punished in that in which he transgressed, remain suspended from the conferral of orders—namely, of the diaconate and priesthood—and the other from execution of the priestly office, until we dispose otherwise concerning them. Therefore, so that the apostolic mandate may obtain its due effect, we command you by apostolic writings that you cause the things set forth above to be published both by the bishops themselves and throughout the dioceses of Bologna and Imola.

Latin source headnote: One who ordains a boy of thirteen years as deacon is suspended from conferring orders, and the one ordained from executing that order until the lawful age.

Honorius III, to the Bishop and Archdeacon of León.

Either the Bishop of Coventry is not master of himself, or he seems to have rejected knowledge too greatly from himself, or he is proved to have sinned from malice. For, to keep silent about the other enormities said of him, he is said, contrary to the institutions of the sacred canons, to have disorderly ordained as deacon M., the boy bearing the present letters, who is still thirteen years of age, in mockery of the clerical order. Indeed, if this were fully established for us, however much we are more inclined toward pardon than even toward due vengeance, we would so chastise this in him that the notorious fault would be rendered manifest by the punishment, and his revealed disgrace would make others more cautious in similar matters.

Unwilling, however, to leave this unexamined, we command your discretion that, after the truth concerning these matters has been investigated and learned, if you find the matter to be so, you suspend the aforesaid bishop from the conferral of orders, with the obstacle of appeal removed, and compel him by ecclesiastical censure, appeal being set aside, to provide a suitable ecclesiastical benefice for the same M., whom, to the disgrace of the one ordaining, we suspend from execution of the office of deacon until the lawful age.

Latin source headnote: A bishop who confers several sacred orders upon the same person on one day, even if he did this by mandate of the metropolitan, is suspended from the power of ordaining.

The same, to the Abbots of Leton and Cala.

Our beloved son G., a canon of Humilis, some time ago disclosed to our apostolate that, when the church of Humilis had been widowed of its pastor, its canons, treating of the election of a pastor to be substituted, elected him unanimously. Since he was constituted below the sacred orders, our venerable brother the Archbishop of Cashel, their metropolitan, commanded the Bishop of Trecensis to promote him to three sacred orders on one and the same day, which that bishop fulfilled not by his own daring but by the mandate of the archbishop himself.

[At length, when requested, the same archbishop refused to bestow upon him the gift of consecration, putting forward the occasion of an ordination of this kind. Hence, it was humbly supplicated of us that, from the kindness of the Apostolic See, we deign to dispense concerning this with the aforesaid W., especially since it was said that he had hastened to receive the orders in this way not from the haste of his own will, but under so great a necessity and from the useful providence of almost all those present there he had permitted himself to be ordained in this manner, because manifold danger threatened the church of Emly if, while the same W. remained below the office of priesthood, his ordination were delayed.

Although the ecclesiastical norm had been transgressed enormously in the deed itself, nevertheless, from mercy, which exalts itself above judgment, we remember that we gave a mandate to our venerable brother the Archbishop of Armagh, the Bishop of Meath, and our beloved son the Archdeacon of Armagh that, after the truth concerning the foregoing had been more diligently investigated, if they found the matter to stand in such a way and the same W. otherwise suitable and useful to the church of Emly, by way of dispensation they should grant him permission to be consecrated. They were also to make known to us by their letters whatever they found had been attempted in this matter by the same archbishop, so that, rendered more certain by their report, we might take care to provide concerning it as would be expedient.

They, having summoned those whom they knew should be summoned and having investigated the truth more fully, transmitted into our presence the depositions of the witnesses produced on both sides. Having inspected them, we clearly understood that, after the election concerning the aforesaid W. had been celebrated, when on the following day the same W. had been promoted to the order of subdiaconate by the aforementioned Bishop of Roffensis, the same bishop separately summoned the archdeacon and canons of Emly. Saying that, because of the disturbance of the land and the many ill-disposed men who were preparing snares for the same W., he was unwilling to leave him below the order of priesthood, he confirmed by oath that the aforesaid archbishop had commanded this both from fear of the death of W. himself and because of the threatening danger of the church of Emly, and that the official of the same archbishop on his part prohibited the aforementioned bishop from then promoting the already-mentioned W., already ordained as subdeacon, to further orders.

When the same bishop answered him that in this matter he believed the archbishop, who had commanded him this with his own mouth, more than he believed that official, with his hand extended over the altar he swore upon the holy things that the often-mentioned archbishop had commanded it, and thus promoted the often-mentioned W. as deacon and priest.

Moreover, we found it sufficiently proved that the said archbishop enjoined upon John, Dean of Hely, that he prohibit the aforesaid bishop from promoting the said W., on the day on which he was promoted to three orders, to any order except the subdiaconate, nevertheless also prohibiting the same W. from permitting himself to be promoted further. But when the same dean had come to the church of Emly, on the part of God and of the Archbishop of Cashel he prohibited both the often-mentioned bishop—who had already ordained the subdeacons, after those who were to be promoted as deacons had been summoned and silence enjoined upon all—from promoting the already-mentioned W. to further orders, and the aforesaid W. from permitting himself to be promoted further.

It was also established for us from the letters of the aforesaid judges that the often-mentioned bishop, when questioned judicially, answered that the archbishop had not commanded him to promote W. to three orders on the same day, but from the archbishop's words he believed him to will this. The said bishop also made this same matter known to us through his letters. Furthermore, we understood from the letters of those judges that the same bishop spontaneously swore judicially that all the things contained in the attestations of the same W. were true.

We also learned from the letters both of the aforesaid archbishop and of the chapter of the church of Emly that, when a question had arisen between the said W. and the canons before the aforesaid archbishop, at a council celebrated at Kolmoellocum, both concerning the election and ordination of the often-mentioned W. and concerning certain of his excesses, and at length an appeal had been made by both parties to our hearing, the same W., not awaiting the term that he had decided to fix for his appeal, obtained the aforesaid letters from us with the truth suppressed.]

Therefore, since [from the foregoing] it has been established for us that the abovementioned bishop transgressed in several matters—both because, without the archbishop's mandate, as he himself confessed, he proceeded disorderly to an ordination of this kind; and because, even if the archbishop's mandate were established, since a dispensation of this kind is by no means permitted to the archbishop by the canon, and there is no doubt that it pertains to the Roman Pontiff alone, the bishop ought not to have obeyed him in this matter; and also because he varied the guilt of perjury several times, first swearing that the archbishop had commanded it and afterwards confessing judicially that he had not mandated it—we, with the counsel of our brothers, suspend him from the power of ordaining until he shall merit to obtain our grace. [The often-mentioned man also, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the Nones of January, in the thirteenth year of our pontificate, 1211.]

Textual note: The source shifts the elect's initial from G. to W., calls the ordaining bishop first Trecensis and later Roffensis, and prints the grammatically difficult phrase tam te magna necessitate. The translation preserves the changes of initial and episcopal designation; it renders the last phrase contextually as “under so great a necessity.” The forms occur in both the Latin Library transcription and the Friedberg-derived reference text.

Latin source headnote: One ordained to sacred orders outside the established times receives the order, and after penance the bishop dispenses with him.

Gregory IX, to the Archbishop of Bar.

We respond thus to your consultation: there is no doubt that those who received sacred orders outside the established times received the character. For a transgression of this kind, after first imposing a suitable penance upon them, you will be able to allow them to minister in the orders received, [being more diligently provident, etc. Given at Rieti, on the second day before the Ides of November, in the fifth year of our pontificate, 1231.]

Latin source headnote: A secret criminal, except a homicide, after penance ministers in the orders received and ascends to higher orders; before penance he is admonished not to minister even in those received.

The same.

It has been asked concerning priests or other clerics who through the guilt of adultery, perjury, homicide, or false testimony have lost the good of an upright conscience. (And below:) We respond that, if the crimes set forth have not been proved in judicial order or are not otherwise notorious, these persons, except those guilty of homicide, ought not after penance to be impeded in orders already received or to be received. If they have not repented, they are to be admonished and adjured under threat of divine judgment not to minister even in the orders received as a testimony of their own damnation.