Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article I. On The Notion And Distinction Of Order
585. Notion. In a general sense, Order is defined by St. Thomas,1 following the Master of the Sentences: Order is a certain seal of the Church by which spiritual power is handed on to the one ordained. This definition indeed applies to all orders (even minor orders), which according to the opinion of several authors are not sacraments strictly so called. What that power is which is conferred in the individual orders will be stated in the following article, where the effects of Order will be treated. Order, insofar as it is a sacrament strictly so called, can be defined: A sacrament of the New Law by which spiritual power is handed on and grace is conferred for duly discharging ecclesiastical offices.2
Order is taken either actively, and then it is better and more clearly called ordination, since it is that action by which spiritual power is conferred; or passively, and then it signifies the power conferred in the ordination itself.
That Order or sacred ordination is a true sacrament of the New Law was defined against the heretics by the Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 3, De sacr. ord.: "If anyone says that Order or sacred ordination is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord ... let him be anathema."3 This Catholic dogma can indeed be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture, from the consent of the Fathers, and from the consent of the Eastern Church.4
Christ appears to have instituted the sacrament of Order partly at the Last Supper, when He gave the Apostles the power of consecrating the Eucharist, and partly after the Resurrection, when He instructed them concerning the governance of the Church.
2 Cf. Billuart, De ordine, diss. 1, a. 1.
3 Denz., n. 963.
4 Cf. Billuart, loc. cit.
586. Distinction. It is certain by faith that there are several orders in the Church.5 The number of these orders in the Latin Church is seven, namely: the orders of porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest.6 In the Eastern Church only four orders are customarily expressly enumerated, namely, lector, subdeacon, deacon, and priest; but from this it is not lawful to conclude that the three omitted orders therefore do not exist in the Eastern Church. For these omitted orders are conferred with the subdiaconate (the orders of acolyte and porter), and with the lectorate or diaconate (the order of exorcist).7
The first four orders are customarily called minor; the last three, however, major and sacred.
5 Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 2, De sacr. ord. (Denz., n. 962).
6 Cf. ibid., c. 2 (Denz., n. 958).
7 Cf. Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath., p. 2, § 83; Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7.
587. It is useful here to touch very briefly upon three controversies:
Whether the four minor orders have the character of a true sacrament? The affirmative opinion was taught quite commonly by the older Scholastics, among whom are cited Blessed Albert the Great, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Paludanus, Scotus, and others. Nearly all modern authors, however, teach the negative opinion.8 Neither opinion is certain, and in this question, as in several others pertaining to sacred ordination, it is necessary to be wise unto sobriety. Hence those do not act rightly who too quickly exclaim: This opinion is certain; but the opposite has now lost all probability.
Whether the episcopate is an order essentially distinct from the priesthood, or only its complement? Very many of the older Scholastics (among whom is St. Thomas) deny this, and Cardinal Raymond Capisuchius, O.P.,9 adduces 80 authors (nearly all of whom he himself professes to have read) who deny that the episcopate is a completely distinct sacrament. Nearly all modern theologians and several of the older ones teach that the episcopate is a completely distinct order and sacrament, and therefore distinguish not seven but eight orders.
Whether the episcopate is validly conferred upon one who invalidly received the priesthood? The negative opinion appears to be preferred. Therefore, in practice, both the episcopal ordination and the other ordinations perhaps performed by such a bishop would have to be repeated conditionally.10
Although there are certainly several orders having the character of a sacrament, nevertheless all the orders constitute one potestative whole, "of which this is the nature, that the whole according to its complete notion is in one, while in another there is some participation in it."11 Furthermore, all the orders constitute one sacrament from the unity of the end to which they are ordained, namely, all are ordained to the Eucharist.
The first clerical tonsure, by which a layman is enrolled in the clerical state, is neither an order nor a sacrament, but a certain sacramental. Thus the most common and certain opinion.12 Fagnanus,13 Reiffenstuel,14 and certain other canonists taught the contrary without solid foundation.
8 Cf., on this controversy, Billuart, De ordine, diss. 1, a. 3, § 2; Chr. Pesch, Prael. dogm. VII, n. 577.
9 Controversiae Theol. select. (Rome, 1670), controv. 28, § 2.
10 Cf. Gasparri, De s. ord. I, n. 26.
11 St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 1 ad 2.
12 Ibid., q. 40, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 734.
13 Comm. in l. 1, tit. 14, c. 11, n. 45.
14 Ius can., l. 1, tit. 11, n. 16.