Chapter — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Chapter II. On the Matter and Form of Order
- The matter and form vary for the various Orders.
I. As regards the minor Orders, with respect to the matter, the Porter is ordained by the handing over of the keys of the Church; the Lector by the handing over of the book of lessons; the Exorcist by the handing over of the book of exorcisms; the Acolyte by the handing over of empty cruets, or at least one, and of a candlestick with an extinguished candle, because it is his office to prepare the light, wine, and water for Mass. The form proper to these Orders is contained in the words which the Bishop uses while handing over the instruments themselves.
II. As regards the Subdiaconate, the imposition of hands is considered the matter among the Greeks. Among the Latins it is disputed. According to some, the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten is its sole proximate matter. Others, however, contend that the handing over of the book of Epistles is likewise essential matter of this Order. The form, moreover, is contained in these words: See whose ministry is handed over to you; and I admonish you so to conduct yourselves that you may be able to please God.
- III. As regards the Diaconate, a twofold matter is established, namely, the imposition of the Bishop's right hand and the handing over of the book of the Gospels. It is disputed whether both of these, or only one, are necessary. Some Theologians think that the imposition of hands alone is necessary, others the handing over of the book alone, and still others both. As regards practice, however, this last opinion, as the safer, is to be held. Consequently, there is also a twofold form. That which is added to the former matter is this: Receive the Holy Spirit for strength and for resisting the devil and his temptations, in the name of the Lord. That which accompanies the latter matter is of this kind: Receive the power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God, both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord.
IV. As regards the Priesthood, among the Greeks its matter is placed in the imposition of hands alone; but among the Latins it is twofold, at least by precept, namely, the imposition of the Bishop's hands and the handing over of the chalice with wine and of the paten with the host placed upon it. It is disputed among Theologians what the essential matter is. More probably it consists in the second imposition of hands alone, which is made by the Bishop with the assisting Priests. - St. Ligorius, no. 749.
The form likewise varies according to the diversity of the matter; therefore it is likewise disputed. Hence the form which corresponds to the handing over of the instruments is this: Receive the power of offering Sacrifice to God and of celebrating Masses both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. But the form proper to the imposition of hands is the prayer itself which the Bishop recites while he imposes hands upon those to be ordained. - See St. Ligorius, no. 739 and following.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is physical contact with the instruments required?
Reply. St. Ligorius, no. 743, says that there are two probable opinions and consequently that the safer one is to be followed in practice. Nevertheless, the negative opinion is to be called safe from the Decisions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. For when a certain French Religious named Ephrem Chasteau had touched neither the chalice nor the paten by physical contact in his ordination to the Priesthood, being moved by a scruple he proposed the case to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. But the Sacred Congregation replied to this scruple of Brother Ephrem: He can continue the celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice without any scruple and with an altogether safe conscience (December 3, 1661, in a case from France). And the Sacred Congregation again confirmed this Declaration in a Roman case on January 21, 1863 1.
1 The Decision of the Sacred Congregation of December 3, 1661, has thus: To the scruple of Brother Ephrem Chasteau, pro-agent of the Recollects of France, namely, that he did not touch the Chalice by physical contact in his Ordination to the Priesthood, the Sacred Congregation replied: He can continue the celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice without any scruple and with an altogether safe conscience. The VV. therefore rightly observe (p. 389) that in this Decision no mention is made of the paten.
The VV. add (ibid.) that Father Ballerini subscribed to the opinion of Father Gury, since he added no annotation or correction. Reply. I deny the consequence, because silence of this kind merely indicates that the questions, in the state in which they were left, are permitted to the judgment of the reader.
The VV. add another reason (ibid.), because Father Ballerini inserted more briefly into the text another Decision of the Sacred Congregation which Gury had reported in the Note in these words: The aforesaid Decision was more recently confirmed by the same Congregation (of Sacred Rites). For when a similar case had occurred at Rome for a newly ordained Priest of the Roman College of the Society of Jesus, Father Perrone, very well known for his theological works, questioned the Sacred Congregation of Rites concerning it; and it gave precisely the same response from the authentic Declaration already made previously, on the occasion of the scruple of Brother Ephrem, on January 21, 1863. Reply. The reason for inserting even this annotation of Father Gury into the text was clearly stated in the Notice to the Reader in these words: It seemed good to remove a certain confusion introduced by the twofold series of Notes, of which some had Father Gury as author, while others had first been added in the Roman edition of the year 1866. As regards the former, we took care that all of them, each in its own place, be inserted into the text. Again, therefore, I deny the consequence.
Finally, after the VV. filled sixteen columns with texts of Authors, they also conclude this (p. 398): If, therefore, the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the year 1661 had defined that the Ordination, as certainly valid, was not to be repeated, the same Sacred Congregation would not only have rejected the most common opinion of the Doctors but would have declared it to be despised as a mere scruple; which is repugnant to all probability. Moreover, it is not probable that all the Doctors who treated this matter after the year 1661 were ignorant of the aforesaid decision; whence it must be said that at least several held it as a response in a particular case, but not as a general definition.
Let it be permissible to observe briefly a few things concerning these matters. And first, it was to be wished that while the VV. wrote these things, they had kept in memory what was done concerning the sixteen Decrees of the Holy Inquisition concerning the denunciation of soliciting Confessors, issued in the same year 1661 and indeed solemnly confirmed by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae. For in order to excuse St. Alphonsus, who holds conclusions rejected by these Decrees, they themselves strove to show that Decrees of this kind could have been altogether unknown to Authors. Why, therefore, do they now contend that it is not probable that all the Doctors who treated this matter after the year 1661 were ignorant of the aforesaid Decision?
Likewise, what they add, that at least several held it (the Decision) as a response in a particular case but not as a general definition, could be called probable if these several in any manner either reported or at least mentioned that Decision. Yet the VV. themselves (p. 397) allege only Scavini, who made mention of it.
Finally (p. 398), they conclude that the proposed question has not yet been defined. But if here they think it lawful to assert, after the Decision of the Sacred Congregation in the year 1661, and indeed one confirmed by the same Sacred Congregation in the year 1863, that the question has not yet been defined, why, then, on account of a Response of the Sacred Congregation, likewise private to a private person, do they elsewhere in some manner sing a triumph and proclaim the question defined, although against the unanimous opinion of Theologians and Canonists, when elsewhere St. Alphonsus, through responses of this kind, so little judged a question defined that, as we saw elsewhere (see above, Note (a) to no. 589, p. 542, and p. 486, in the Note), he did not hesitate to hold and teach the opposite? Do not the VV. here also recall to the reader's mind that saying: Weight and weight, measure and measure?
Moreover, no reasonable and well-founded scruple can be present in anyone ordained. For in practice Bishops are accustomed so to proceed that in a matter of such importance they always hold the safer way. Moreover, so many Ministers and Officials have the duty of watching over the rite to be observed in Ordination that moral certainty is had that all things were done rightly and validly.
QUESTION 2. Is the handing over of both species necessarily required?
Reply. More probably, yes, because through the handing over of one species the power over the whole Sacrifice is not handed over. - St. Ligorius as more probable, no. 750. - The Salmanticenses, chapter 3, no. 45.
- QUESTION 3. Is he validly ordained who touches the host but not the paten; and he who touches the chalice and paten but not the host?
Reply to the first. Yes, with the common opinion, which appears most probable. The reason is that the host and wine are the substantial matter of Order, by which the power over the Body of Christ is principally signified, while the chalice and paten are employed from the precept of the Church for the sake of fittingness alone. Nevertheless, in practice the safer part is to be followed. - St. Ligorius, no. 751.
Reply to the second. Likewise yes, with the common and truer opinion, says St. Ligorius. The reason is: first, because then the host is touched through the mediation of the paten; but immediate contact with the host is not prescribed by the Church, but only with the paten, as is evident from the Pontifical. Second, because the wine in the chalice is never touched immediately; therefore, neither is it required that the host be touched immediately. Nevertheless, care is to be taken that the one to be ordained touch the chalice, the paten, and the host at the same time, and thus he will free himself from every scruple. - St. Ligorius, no. 752.