Chapter IV. On the Subject of the Sacrament of Order

709. Principles. - I. The subject of Order is a baptized male alone.

The reason for the first is that women by divine institution are altogether incapable of any Order. This is established from the sacred Scriptures. The Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 14:34: Let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as the law also says. And 1 Timothy 2:11-12: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man, but to be in silence. It is also proved from the perpetual practice of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and all Doctors.

The reason for the second is evident. For no one before receiving Baptism can receive any other Sacrament.

But a baptized little boy not yet possessed of reason would indeed be validly, but illicitly, ordained.

710. • II. That someone may rightly receive Orders, the following conditions are required: first, that he be bound by no irregularity, suspension, or excommunication; second, that he have attained the age required by the sacred Canons; third, that he manifest suitable knowledge proved by examination; fourth, that he present dimissorial letters if he is from another diocese; fifth, that he be ordained at the proper time and with the proper intervals interposed; sixth, that probity of life also have divine vocation as its companion.

For ordination to the Subdiaconate, there is required in addition a title of honorable support, whether of patrimony, of benefice, or even of religious poverty. If the title should perish after the Subdiaconate has been received, another title is required for receiving a higher Order. - Council of Trent, session 21, chapter 2, On Reformation.

711. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What knowledge is required in candidates to be promoted to Orders?

Reply. First, from those to be initiated into minor Orders it is required that they at least understand the Latin language. Second, from those to be initiated into the Subdiaconate and Diaconate it is required that they be instructed in letters and in those things which pertain to exercising the Order. Third, finally, from those to be initiated into the Priesthood it is required that they be found fit to teach the people those things which are necessary to all for salvation and to minister the Sacraments. - Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 4 and following.

QUESTION 2. What age is required for receiving Orders?

Reply. First, for receiving first tonsure it is required that the one to be initiated possess the use of reason, namely, that he be at least seven years old. - Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 4. Second, as regards minor Orders, no age is assigned in Canon law. Third, from Subdeacons the twenty-second year of age begun is required. Fourth, from Deacons the twenty-third. Fifth, from Priests the twenty-fifth. Sixth, for the Episcopate, however, the thirtieth year is required. This is gathered from the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 12, On Reformation. It suffices, however, that the indicated year have begun, except, nevertheless, for the Episcopate. - St. Ligorius, no. 799. But dispensation as regards age is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. - St. Ligorius, nos. 799-800.

712. • QUESTION 3. At what time can Orders be conferred?

Reply 1. First tonsure can be conferred on any day, at any hour and place. - Thus from the Roman Pontifical.

Reply 2. Minor Orders can also be conferred anywhere on each Sunday or double feast of precept, provided they are conferred in the morning. - See the Roman Pontifical. But this is to be understood of an ordination which is not general, since a general ordination must take place on those days on which major Orders can be conferred, unless custom permits this on the Wednesday or Friday before the general ordination. - Scavini.

Reply 3. Major Orders by law are conferred during the celebration of Mass: first, on the Saturday of each of the four Ember seasons; second, on the Saturday before Passion Sunday; third, on Holy Saturday. But by dispensation obtained from the Pope, they can also be conferred outside these times, namely, on other Sundays or feasts of precept (that is, of the rite of a double of the second class) ¹. - Decretals, book 1, title 11, chapter 3, etc. - Moreover, suppressed feasts are regarded as feasts of precept as regards Orders. Sacred Congregation of Rites, November 12, 1831, and March 13, 1833.

¹ Why the Author regards a feast of precept and a feast with the rite of a double of the second class as one and the same I have not yet discovered. If indeed by feasts of precept he understands those which are observed both in choir (as they say) and in the external forum, there will certainly occur double feasts of the second class which are not observed in the external forum; but if by feasts of precept he understands those which are not celebrated ad libitum in choir, we shall then have many feasts of this kind which nevertheless are not doubles of the second class.

Nevertheless, it was indeed the opinion of a certain few that the feast days on which, by Apostolic Indult, an ordination can be held outside the times could be understood as any days whatsoever on which a feast of double rite occurs in the ecclesiastical offices, and, in addition, that this has force not only for doubles of precept but also for doubles ad libitum. La Croix (book 6, part 2, no. 2293) considered this opinion probable and thought it confirmed by the fact that (he says) we see it done thus by the best Bishops.

But that opinion appears now to be called obsolete, especially after so many Declarations of the Sacred Congregations. For I now pass over the fact that when some, as De Lugo relates (Moral Responses, book 1, doubt 34), took occasion obstinately to defend that opinion from the words of the Roman Pontifical, where in the title On Conferring Orders it was said in the rubric: But minor Orders can be given on each Sunday and on double feast days, etc.; for this reason, by command of Urban VIII, in the new revision and correction of the Roman Pontifical, it was expressly added under that title that minor Orders could be conferred on all Sundays and feast days of precept, so that no one (De Lugo adds) could any longer claim that those days which are called feasts in the Breviary were also comprehended there. But the controversy was more clearly defined by Responses of the Sacred Congregation. For, as Fagnanus reports (On the Chapter De eo, title On the Times of Ordinations, no. 42), these doubts having been proposed:

Presupposing that minor Orders can be conferred on Sundays or other feast days, it is doubted whether under the appellation of a feast day there is comprehended a feast on which an office is celebrated by the Church, or whether it must be a feast observed by the people.

Second: There is the same doubt as regards those to be promoted by force of dispensations for promotion outside the times on feast days.

To the first, the Sacred Congregation of the Council judged that feast days observed by the people are comprehended: throughout the title On Ferias. - On Consecration, distinction 3, chapter 1. - Chapter 12, session 25, On Regulars.

To the second, it replied the same.

That this Declaration, nevertheless, was unknown to most is evident from the fact that neither La Croix (l.c.), nor Schmalzgrueber (book 1, title 11, no. 11), nor Pichler (same title, no. 28), where they touch upon this question, make any mention of it; although Pirhing mentioned it (under this title, no. 78), where he notes that it suffices if the day is a feast in that particular Church.

In addition, we have two more recent Declarations of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The first was in a case from Clermont, on March 16, 1833, to the following doubt: Since diverse opinions are circulated in the Council of Clermont concerning these words of the Roman Pontifical: Minor Orders can be conferred on Sundays and double feasts; in order that a certain law be established in the matter, most humble prayers were presented to the Sacred Congregation of Rites that it might deign to declare its opinion. And the Sacred Congregation replied: Minor Orders can be conferred on feasts of precept, or on double feasts which were of precept before the reduction.

The other was in a case from Quebec, on May 23, 1836, to the following doubt: Since in the Roman Pontifical, in the title On Ordinations, it is stated: Minor Orders can be given on each Sunday and on double feast days; it is asked whether the words double feast days are to be understood of feasts of precept strictly to be observed. The Sacred Congregation replied: Affirmatively.

713. • QUESTION 4. What intervals are to be observed between the individual Orders?

Reply 1. Certain intervals are to be observed between the minor Orders unless something else appears more expedient to the Bishop. - Thus from the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 11, On Reformation. - The time, however, is not determined. In many places, by custom, the four Orders are conferred on the same day.

Reply 2. As regards major Orders, it was thus established by the Council of Trent, session 23, chapters 11 and 12: one year must intervene between the last of the minor Orders received and the Subdiaconate. Say the same between the Subdiaconate and the Diaconate. The same is also to be said between the Diaconate and the Priesthood, unless the Bishop decrees otherwise. Hence the Bishop has the power of dispensing from the intervals if it appears expedient to him, provided that he confers the Orders at the proper times.

But he would sin gravely who on the same day, in addition to the four minor Orders, also received the Subdiaconate, unless a contrary custom, which must be proved by the Bishop, excuses him. - Ferraris, Library, entry Order. - St. Ligorius, no. 797.

714. • QUESTION 5. Does a Cleric who, having been initiated into the minor Orders, takes a wife sin?

Reply. Speaking per se, it is certain that he does not sin gravely, indeed not even lightly, if he does this for a just cause, for example, to calm enmities or temptations of the flesh, to assist a poor woman, etc.; otherwise, he will not be excused from venial sin. - St. Ligorius, no. 785. - I said speaking per se; for, St. Ligorius says, it is greatly to be feared that one who, being certain of his vocation to the ecclesiastical state, withdraws from it in order to enjoy the world is in a bad state.

QUESTION 6. Is it required that the one to be ordained be confirmed?

Reply. The Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 4, has these words: Let those who have not received the Sacrament of Confirmation not be initiated with first tonsure. But it is disputed whether these words are of precept or of counsel only. Commonly, says St. Ligorius, no. 786, they say that Confirmation is not required in the one to be ordained under grave obligation, but is indeed required under light obligation; because although the words of the Council of Trent indicate fittingness rather than precept, nevertheless, to act contrary to this is not excused from at least a light disorder.

715. • QUESTION 7. Does he sin who receives some Order without the intention of ascending to higher Orders?

Reply 1. He does not sin gravely, even if he receives major Orders and does not intend to receive the Priesthood. - Thus St. Ligorius, no. 785, where he says that this is certain and common.

Reply 2. Nor, probably, does he per se sin venially, because it is prescribed by no law that anyone ascend to higher Orders, unless someone accepts a benefice requiring the Priesthood or a sacred Order. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 8. Does an ordained man who omits the recitation of the prayers imposed by the Bishop after ordination by way of penance sin, or in what manner does he sin? Reply. The Theologians do not agree concerning this. For some say that he sins gravely because the matter of the precept is grave. Others hold that he does not sin at all because the Bishop does not impose a precept. Finally, others judge that an omission of this kind is indeed not free from fault, but does not exceed venial sin. This opinion appears more probable. - See St. Ligorius, no. 829.

As regards these prayers, the following Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Rites was given in a case from Granada on August 11, 1860: Understand the words of the Roman Pontifical, the Nocturn of such a day, of the one Nocturn in the ferial office, or of the first Nocturn of Sunday, as in the Psalter, that is, of twelve Psalms with their antiphons of the season, which the ordaining Bishop can designate, either of the very day on which he holds the ordination or of another according to his judgment. But when the Bishop expresses nothing other than what the words of the Pontifical state, it must be understood as the Nocturn of the feria corresponding to that day on which the ordination took place.

716. • QUESTION 9. Are newly ordained Priests bound to say the three Masses prescribed by the Bishop, or in what manner?

Reply 1. They are not bound to apply them for the intention of the Bishop and therefore can receive a stipend for them. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

Reply 2. Nor does there appear to be a grave obligation of celebrating those Masses; neither must they be said before days free from impediment arrive, since they must be votive Masses. - See St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 10. To what are Priests bound by force of the obedience which they promised to the Bishop in ordination?

Reply. Benedict XIV thus explains it (in the Letter Ex quo dilectus): We acknowledge that, by force of a promise of this kind, a Priest is held bound by this law among others: that he cannot depart from the service of the Church to which he shall have been assigned without the permission of the Bishop. - St. Ligorius, no. 828.

717. • QUESTION 11. Can Priests, or even Pastors, embrace the religious state when the Bishop is unwilling?

Reply. Yes. This is established from Canon law, chapter Duae sunt, cause 19, question 2, where it is established by Urban II that Priests or Pastors wishing to pass over to some monastery can freely depart, even when the Bishop opposes it. - See St. Ligorius, no. 828, and the cited Letter of Benedict XIV in the preceding Question.

718. • QUESTION 12. Is absolution to be granted to a Cleric habituated to a secret shameful vice who wishes to ascend to sacred Orders without a prior trial of continence?

Reply. St. Ligorius replies negatively in On the Sacraments in General, no. 64, although he has sincerely been converted to the Lord and therefore can immediately be absolved. According to his opinion, therefore, he will not be able to receive sacred Order unless for some time he has devoted effort to uprooting the evil habit. But if he persists in receiving sacred Order, St. Ligorius does not consider him disposed for absolution, because he violates the law of the Church in a grave matter. He excepts only the case in which God gives the penitent an extraordinary grace of compunction which renders him so proved that he can immediately receive sacred Order without being proved by an experience of time. Others, however, think otherwise on this entire question in the same St. Ligorius. - See Cases, no. 826 ².

² Concerning a controversy of this kind, it will be useful to have read those things which Cardinal De Lugo (Moral Responses, book 1, doubt 28) discusses concerning a Novice who, having entered an observant Religious Order, suffered frequent voluntary lapses of the flesh, which he manifested to the Confessor in confession, and afterward relapsed more frequently. For the Confessor, judging that he was not fit for the Religious Order, frequently advised him to return to the world or to disclose his frailty to the Superior outside confession; indeed, he finally attempted to oblige the penitent to this, indicating that thereafter he would deny him absolution unless he obeyed. It was asked (De Lugo says) whether the Confessor could do this by right, or whether he had transgressed the limits of his power. There is no room here to bring forward those things which the learned Author disputes there. This one thing must not be passed over: according to his opinion, all the reasons which the Confessor is said to have advanced for defending his opinion do not prove the matter.