Correcting Defects of Ordinations

458. Concerning Supplying Defects Committed in Ordination. A defect can be committed in ordination because something which pertains to the rite of ordination is either entirely omitted or badly administered.

1. If a defect has certainly been committed, and indeed concerning a rite certainly essential, e.g., concerning the matter or form, the whole ordination is to be repeated absolutely.

2. If a defect has only probably been committed, or if it has been committed concerning a rite only probably essential, e.g., concerning the delivery or touch of instruments, the whole ordination is to be repeated conditionally. But if that defect is detected during the ordination itself, e.g., before the canon, it suffices that only the omitted rite or the rite previously performed be supplied in the same ordination.

Unless there is a positive doubt concerning a defect committed, the ordained man ought to acquiesce and continue the celebration. Therefore Busenbaum wisely warns: "even if someone fears that he has been invalidly ordained, or does not remember that he touched the sacred vessels, or imagines that he did not touch them, the order is not immediately to be repeated, since mere forgetfulness or fear does not suffice for a prudent and reasonable doubt or probability."¹ And this is the reason why the holy see responded to the scruple of Fr. Ephrem, namely that he had not touched physically the chalice in his ordination to the presbyterate, that he "could continue celebration."²

3. If the defect has been committed in a rite which supposes that the essential power has already been conferred, such as the third imposition of hands, by which according to some the power over the mystical body of Christ is conferred, supposing the power over the real body of Christ, this part alone must be supplied.

4. If the defect committed is certainly accidental, but grave, it must be supplied as soon as possible; but if the defect committed is light, nothing must be supplied.

a. The matter is judged grave: alpha. the anointing of hands, and indeed according to the opinion of all; according to the opinion of some, beta. also the delivery of vestments.

b. For the anointing of hands, by the prescription of the Roman Pontifical, oil of catechumens must be used. But if by error sacred chrism is used, the anointing is not to be repeated; rather, the priest without repetition of the anointing can be secure in conscience and without anxiety of soul.³

c. A light matter, which therefore even if omitted must not be supplied, is: alpha. the imposition of hands which is made by the priests; beta. the recitation of the canon with the bishop.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 757.

² S. C. R., December 3, 1661, n. 1221.

³ Holy Office, July 22, 1874.

I. Obligation of correcting defects. Commonly there is an obligation of correcting defects: 1. if the ordination was doubtfully valid, in other words, if the defect concerned something certainly or probably essential; 2. if it concerned something accidental which is of the greatest moment. I said commonly; for after receiving a higher Order there is no obligation of correcting defects, even essential ones, admitted in the conferral of lower Orders. The reason is that one who receives a higher Order is considered eminently to receive the lower ones. Nevertheless: 1. a doubtfully valid ordination to the Diaconate, as being an Order of greater moment and a sacrament, seems to have to be convalidated even after the Presbyterate has been received; since the Holy Office¹ resolved that ordination to the Diaconate had to be repeated with respect to a priest whose head the Bishop, while conferring the Diaconate, had not physically touched. 2. Likewise a doubtfully valid ordination to the Presbyterate must be repeated even after the Episcopate has been received; both because the Presbyterate is an Order of the greatest moment and a sacrament, and because it is very doubtful whether the Episcopate contains the Presbyterate, indeed whether the Episcopate is validly conferred on one who is not a priest (St. Alphonsus, VI, 793).²

II. Manner of correcting defects. 1. If the defect concerned something certainly or probably essential, commonly the whole ordination must be reiterated. I said commonly, because there are exceptions, for example if in the ordination of a presbyter the last imposition was omitted; in that case it suffices to supply it, as we shall immediately explain.

2. If the defect concerned something accidental, there is no obligation of supplying it, unless it concerns an accidental element of very great moment. In this matter such an element is judged to be the anointing of the hands; but not the imposition of the hand of the presbyters. Nor is there sufficient certainty about others. Besides, from the response of the Holy Office: nothing is to be supplied if in place of the oil of catechumens the oil of Holy Chrism was used (St. Alphonsus, VI, 758).

¹ January 20, 1875 (Collectio, n. 1431).

² Besides, canon 1004 is to be observed: If someone, already promoted to some orders in an eastern rite, has obtained from the Apostolic See an indult of receiving higher orders in the Latin rite, he must first receive in the Latin rite the orders which he did not receive in the eastern rite.

Corollary I. The whole ordination must be repeated: 1. if in the ordination of a Deacon or Presbyter the first imposition was omitted; 2. if in it physical contact did not take place;¹ 3. if the second imposition of hands was omitted by the Bishop, that is, the one which follows the first, in which nothing is said;² 4. if the handing over of the instruments was omitted, or the respective words were not added or were substantially corrupted;³ 5. if the chalice was handed over without wine or the paten without the host;⁴ 6. if it is doubted whether the ordinand physically touched the instruments or one of those instruments whose touch, according to what was said on p. 456, is regarded as necessary with some probability.

Corollary II. It suffices to supply the defect if in the ordination of a Presbyter the third imposition of hands was omitted, or if the form corresponding to that imposition was essentially corrupted.⁵

Corollary III. Nothing is to be repeated: 1. if the Bishop after the first imposition, duly performed, "did not hold his hands extended over the ordained person also through the interval which intervenes between the first and second imposition of hands";⁶ 2. "if the Bishop, after physical touch of the heads of the ordinands, had his hand extended over the ordinands at least immediately before the recitation of 'Let us pray,'" etc.⁷

¹ July 22, 1874 (Collectio, n. 1421).

² Holy Office, July 4, 1900 (Collectio, n. 2086); May 7, 1902 (Collectio, n. 2140).

³ Holy Office, November 30, 1898; cf. response of the Holy Office, July 19, 1899 (Collectio, n. 2058).

⁴ Holy Office, June 20, 1886; September 1, 1892; July 6, 1898 (Collectio, n. 2008); January 11, 1899 (Collectio, n. 2032).

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 22, 1841, n. 2836; Holy Office, March 4, 1874.

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 14, 1893, n. 3307.

⁷ Holy Office, September 12, 1877 (Collectio, n. 1482); November 30, 1898.

III. Time for correcting defects. "As often as an ordination must be repeated or some rite supplied, whether absolutely or conditionally, this can be done even outside the times and secretly" (canon 1007).

Note 1. "Even if someone could rest in the first ordination on account of some opinion considered morally certain, nevertheless he will not sin if, while the opposite opinion of others stands for the nullity of the sacrament, he is ordained again conditionally for greater peace of soul; and the Bishop also can licitly do this for his benefit. And the reason seems to be that anxiety itself about the doubt, provided it is vehement, is a just cause for repeating ordination conditionally" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 751). Nevertheless one must beware of scruples, which easily creep in; that is, the anxious and agitated ordinand, after such a great series of actions, easily doubts whether he duly performed something. But ordinarily doubts of this kind should be rejected at once, and to this end it should be considered that both the Bishop and the ministers carefully attend lest anything be omitted either by the one ordaining or by the one being ordained, especially from those things which perhaps are required for validity.

Note 2. If some doubt arises about the validity of an ordination, recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, which, if the doubt is connected with dogmatic doctrine, will remit the matter to the Holy Office. Religious should approach the Sacred Congregation of Religious, which will have recourse to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. If the discussion concerns a case of conscience, the Sacred Penitentiary should be approached.

Whether and how must defects committed in ordination be supplied? - If the defect is concerning accidentals, e.g., if the anointing of the hands of the priest to be initiated was lacking, then it must be supplied as soon as possible by the same Bishop, if this can be done, otherwise by another, and supplied secretly if it was hidden, to avoid scandal and disturbance of others. If one thus ordained would not take care that a defect of this kind be supplied, or before the supplying would minister in the order received, he would sin gravely or lightly according as the defect is grave or light. Nevertheless, if instead of oil of catechumens, in the anointing of the hands, oil of the sick was used, nothing is to be repeated. Holy Office, July 22, 1874. If the Bishop alone imposed hands, the imposition of hands of the priests will not have to be supplied. S. C. de P. F., Aug. 6, 1840, C. n. 1195.

If the defect is concerning essentials, namely concerning matter and form, the defect must altogether be supplied under grave obligation. If the sacrament consists of a double matter and form, as in the ordination of priesthood, according at least to the probable opinion of several, then if the defect is in the preceding part, namely in the handing over of the chalice and paten, or in the second imposition of hands, certainly the whole sacrament is to be repeated, because power over the mystical Body of Christ is founded on power over the real Body of Christ; but otherwise if the defect is in the posterior part, namely in the last imposition of hands, because the power toward the true Body of Christ has already been handed on independently of the subsequent part. And thus also in the ordination of a deacon, if the presentation of the book of Gospels has been omitted, it is to be supplied. Cf. 883.

But the Salmanticenses, c. 2, n. 32, say that this indeed is to be held in the ordination of presbyterate and episcopate, but not of other orders; because in them, if there is probability for the validity of the received order, it is not required to supply the defect, since in the priesthood afterward to be received all their power is received. But this is not to be admitted, at least practically. For C. Presbyter, de Sacram. non iterand., speaking of the ordination of deacons, the Pontiff says that if the imposition of hands has been omitted, it is altogether to be repeated, although it is probable that the handing over of the book alone is of the essence. And when doubt occurs about the validity of the other orders also, it is prescribed that they again be conferred under condition. S. C. C., Aug. 3, 1724, etc.

St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 35, a. 2, says these things: "It must be said that it is not of the necessity of superior orders that someone first have minor orders, because the powers are distinct, and one, as regards its own nature, does not require another in the same subject. And therefore even in the primitive Church some were ordained priests who had not first received inferior orders; and nevertheless they could do all things which the inferior orders can, because the inferior power is comprehended in the superior power, as sense in intellect and a duchy in a kingdom. But afterward by the constitution of the Church it was determined that one should not thrust himself into the greater orders who had not first humbled himself in lesser offices. And from this it is that those who are ordained by leap according to the canons, C. Tuae litterae, de Cler. per salt. promoto, are not reordained, but that which had been omitted from the preceding orders is conferred on them."

From the aforesaid C. Tuae Litterae, a priest who by leap was made priest from subdeacon is commanded to be ordained deacon. And, while doubt stood about the ordination of a certain priest to the diaconate, the Holy Office defined on Jan. 20, 1875 and Jan. 26, 1898, that this ordination was to be repeated under condition in that priest. Likewise, while doubt stood about the ordination of subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate, the same Holy Office decreed on Aug. 1, 1697, that all these were to be repeated under condition. - Canon Sollicitudo 1, D. 52; Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n. 7; Constitution Pastor bonus, Apr. 13, 1744, § 18; Suarez, de Censur., d. 31, s. 1, n. 53.

A defect concerning the validity of the sacrament is to be supplied at the time established by the Church from the cited C. Presbyter. But it must be said otherwise if there were an accidental defect. But Tamburini, l. 7, c. 5, § 2, n. 13; La-Croix 2200, and others probably say that if an order is repeated under condition because of doubt alone, or some ceremony, it can be repeated on any day and by any Bishop. And when doubts of this kind occur, it is in fact customary to grant that the repetition of ordination under condition can be made by any Catholic Bishop, secretly, at any time of the year, and in a private chapel. - L. 757-759; La-Croix 2220 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 30, n. 2; E. M.

1. "Titius, when he approached to receive the priesthood, was prohibited by the master of ceremonies, little skilled in his office, from touching the chalice and paten while the bishop was pronouncing those words of the form: Receive power, etc.; but immediately after the whole form had been pronounced, he was ordered to touch. Afterward he doubted about the value and security of his ordination, and whether he could or ought to be ordained again under condition.

"I said in the aforesaid Case that Titius could rest in the first ordination without any repetition, even conditional; nevertheless he would not sin if, for the greater quiet of his soul, he were ordained again under condition, which also the bishop could licitly do in his favor ... Because the opinion teaching that the first ordination is not valid, although it has on its side some ancient authors, nevertheless is now so deserted that it seems antiquated and to lack every probability ... yet it seems probable, at least through extrinsic principles, that it can be repeated under condition. For Cajetan, Scotus, Richardus, Navarrus, and Zambranus denied the value of the first ordination." Thus Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 33, nn. 3, 5.

But if the ordination in the Case is held as certainly valid, and therefore safely not to be repeated, it is not understood how someone can at the same time hold some opinion as destitute of every intrinsic probability, and yet hold it as probable by extrinsic probability, so that nevertheless, in the Case, ordination can licitly be repeated. "For neither," as Lugo himself has in the place cited, n. 4, "does it suffice for a moral doubt of ordination that some authors have said it is not valid, if nevertheless it is established that they said this without sufficient foundation." This indeed the same Lugo demonstrates in this way, asserting at the same time that in fact the ordination of Titius had been held as valid, and that no bishop could be induced to repeat it. "The common opinion of theologians," he says in the place cited, n. 1, "does not require mathematical simultaneity, but moral simultaneity between the matter and form of the sacrament ... Nor does the contrary opinion seem to have probability, since there is not a sufficient foundation for requiring that mathematical simultaneity; indeed, in the conferral of the diaconate and subdiaconate this is not in fact observed, but the form having been pronounced by the bishop in the plural number for all those to be ordained, each one successively touches the book or instruments. Why therefore could the same not be done in the conferral of the priesthood, so that the bishop would say to all: Receive power, etc., and afterward each would successively touch the matter; or, if perhaps the number of those to be ordained were large, the bishop would repeat the same form three or four times with interrupted delays, lest the pronouncement of the form be too distant from the contact of the matter? I know that sometime some bishop did this thus, and, if I remember well, Fr. Luisius ab Alcazar narrated to me that he had in fact been ordained priest in this way, nor could the bishop be brought to repeat the form under condition and present the matter, constantly asserting that this was demanded without any foundation at all. Wherefore, in the Case brought to us, the same would have to be said a fortiori, in which a much greater simultaneity intervened, and therefore many bishops, asked by the same Titius to ordain him again under condition, constantly refused this, not daring, on account of that very slight scruple, to repeat sacred ordination even under condition."

Nor likewise is it understood what Lugo also has in nn. 3 and 5 to demonstrate his assertion, namely that it can well be that the opinion denying the value of the ordination is not probable, and at the same time that the opinion affirming the obligation of repetition is probable: "for they are diverse questions." They are indeed diverse questions, but so connected that if the value of the ordination is truly morally certain, as in the Case, then consequently the ordination cannot be repeated; for the obligation, morally certain, of not repeating the ordination follows from its morally certain value. Baptism itself cannot be repeated unless its value is positively doubtful. I. M. 888.

2. Adulphus is afflicted with great anxiety, because in his priestly ordination with one hand indeed he touched the chalice and paten with the host, but with the other hand he also touched the paten with the host, but the chalice only with the nail of the middle finger. Wherefore he urgently asks that he be ordained again, at least under condition.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Adulphus ought to be altogether at peace, and neither ought nor can he be ordained again, even under condition. For he was altogether validly ordained, since the touch of the paten and chalice was certainly not lacking, and indeed such as is prescribed by the Roman Pontifical. Just as he who touches with a finger truly touches with the hand, so also he who touches with a nail truly touches with the finger; and if he touches with the nail, he certainly touches. Besides, he who, through the medium of a glove, struck another with the hand and assaulted him with blows, would certainly touch him. Therefore a fortiori he truly touches who touches through the medium of the nail. Moreover, since Adulphus with one hand perfectly touched the instruments, with the other perfectly touched the host with the paten, and has a scruple only with regard to the touch, through the medium of the nail, of the chalice with the other hand, there can be no doubt about his valid ordination. Let La-Croix, n. 2155, be heard: "If the ordinand touches the matter with only one hand, or only one finger, Sanchez, etc., rightly teach that this suffices for the value of the ordination, because he who touches with one hand is said simply to touch, indeed even if with the nail alone of the hand, as Lugo and Gobat have; for, if with the nail alone you were to tear the face of another, certainly you would be said to have touched him. A further reason is that we ought not to say that something is required for the essence of the sacrament, when without it the form of the sacrament is preserved; and the authority of Scripture or of the Church does not compel us to require such a thing." St. Alphonsus 743 has the same: "Escobar rightly says that it suffices for validity that the matter be touched with one hand. And likewise Escobar, etc., with the common opinion, rightly judge that mediate touch suffices, namely if the chalice, paten, or book is touched through some veil or glove; for he who touches in this way is said in the sense of all truly to touch." Cf. Coll. S. C. de P. F., n. 1205.

3. 1.º "Fr. N. N., positively doubting whether in his ordination he physically touched the paten, although he is certain that he touched the host, asked for his own quiet: what must be done in this Case?

R. Let him acquiesce. S. O., July 2, 1892; Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 2178.

2.º "Caius, a priest ... touched only the paten together with the host placed upon the chalice, but not the chalice, although he strove to reach it with his finger.

R. Let the petitioner acquiesce." S. O., March 17, 1897.

3.º "Gaspar, a priest ... there being four or five ordinands, and all crowding to touch the instruments, remembers that he had first touched them, but nevertheless in the act in which the formula was being pronounced, although he hurried to touch them again, he did not succeed in doing it, having been impeded by the hands of the others.

R. Let the petitioner acquiesce." S. O., March 17, 1897.

4.º "Sempronius ... not having used the index and middle fingers in touching the instruments, but the index fingers and thumbs, first touched the cup of the chalice; but then, when the bishop was pronouncing the formula, touched only the paten with the host placed upon the chalice.

R. Let the petitioner acquiesce." S. O., March 17, 1897.

5.º "Those ordained to the orders of subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood by Bishop A., the matter of the said orders not having been presented by him, are to be ordained again under condition and singly to the said orders, the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical being observed." S. O., Aug. 1, 1697; M. E., vol. 9, part 2, p. 217. - E. M. 884 ff.

4. "A certain bishop, when he wished to confer the order of diaconate on a certain subdeacon, in carrying out his ordination indeed suspended his right hand, and at a very small distance, over his head, without nevertheless touching the aforesaid head bodily. Not very long afterward he promoted the same cleric to the priestly order. - Whether, to repair the defect of the aforesaid ordination, the whole ordination of the diaconate must be repeated under condition in that priest?

R. Affirmatively." S. O., Jan. 20, 1875; M. E., place cited, p. 231.

5. In the priestly ordination of Pancratius, the first imposition of hands by the bishop and by the other assisting priests was omitted. Indeed, the bishop and the other priests, while the Oremus, fratres carissimi, etc., was being recited by the bishop, all omitted the extension of the right hand over the ordinand. Immediately when the bishop completed the aforesaid prayer, having been admonished about the omission of the imposition of the hand, he supplied it by imposing hands upon his head. - Was the ordination of Pancratius valid?

R. The aforesaid ordination can be called into doubt from the fact that the second imposition of the hand, or extension, was omitted, which also according to the common opinion is held as necessary for ordination. Wherefore, although the first imposition of hands was validly supplied, because, made immediately after the form, it was now morally joined with it, nevertheless it alone does not suffice. Yet, considering the common doctrine of theologians concerning the first and the second imposition of hands, the ordination is more truly valid in the Case. For therefore the first and second imposition of hands are commonly required, because in the first there is had bodily touch, which is lacking in the second, and in the second there is had the form, which is lacking in the first. Wherefore the second imposition of the hand is only the continuation of the first, namely for having the moral union of the first imposition of the hand with the form; hence in the concrete there is only one continued imposition of hands. If therefore immediately after the form the imposition of hands was supplied by bodily touch, the ordination must be called valid. I. M. 883; M. E., vol. 12, p. 375. Immediately after the form. For if, for example, the aforesaid imposition of hands were supplied after the handing over of the instruments and when the Canon of the Mass had already begun, the ordination would have to be repeated entirely under condition. S. O., Aug. 22, 1900; A. S. S., vol. 33, p. 224 ff.

N.B. On account of the indelible character of the sacrament of Order, which perhaps even the minor orders imprint, the Church does not think of taking away the order itself from anyone. Nor does she wish that tonsure itself be invalidated. But she declares doubts, reduces the ordained to the state of laymen, and dispenses from obligations. Thus a cleric, in minor orders, validly and licitly marries; but, in the Latin Church, now, by that very fact, he falls from the clerical state.

— Doubts concerning the value of ordination, even for religious, pertain of themselves to the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments, which will transmit the question to the Holy Office, if a doctrinal point can be controverted on which the solution depends.

Yet the Sacred Penitentiary can be approached for advice by all concerning a doubt of conscience pertaining to this matter, or when without danger of infamy or scandal the matter cannot be divulged, and at the same time the remedy can consist in a secret repeated ordination without the necessity of repeating quite many ordinations or of taking a similar disposition public of itself. Then the name of him concerning whose ordination there is doubt is withheld.

— The very validity of ordination or its obligations can be impugned. The libellus is to be sent to the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments. But if a substantial defect of the sacred rite is alleged, the libellus is to be sent to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

The Sacred Congregation defines whether the cause is to be treated by judicial order or by the path of discipline. In the former case, the cause is remitted to the diocesan tribunal; in the other, the Sacred Congregation itself settles the question (c. 1993. Cf. Epitome, III, 299 with appendix).

Validity can be impugned both by the ordained man and by the Ordinary to whom he is subject or in whose diocese he was ordained; obligations, however, by the cleric alone who contends that the obligations were not contracted by him (c. 1991).

The mode of procedure is similar to the process in matrimonial causes, with a defender of the bond of sacred ordination constituted (cc. 1995, 1996). Meanwhile the cleric is prohibited from the exercise of orders as a precaution (c. 1997).

Two conforming sentences are required for the cleric to be free from the obligations which flow from the bond of ordination (c. 1998).

595. Scholion. On supplying defects committed in ordination. If the minor orders and the subdiaconate were not sacraments, neither would they themselves have matter and form from divine law, as is evident. Therefore the Church could easily supply all defects occurring in these orders and dispense in them. In practice, however, such a dispensation is never granted; but if a founded doubt has arisen concerning the validity of such orders, a new ordination (at least conditional) is prescribed. With regard to defects committed in the ordination of a deacon and priest, let the following be noted:

1. Light accidental defects are not afterward to be supplied. Thus, for example, if in the anointing of the hands the oil of catechumens was not employed, but chrism, nothing is afterward to be repeated.

2. Grave accidental defects are afterward to be supplied, for example, if the anointing of the hands was entirely omitted, or if the third imposition of the bishop's hands was lacking.

3. Defects which probably touch the very essence of ordination are not only to be supplied, but the whole ordination is to be repeated conditionally. Such defects are considered to be: a) if the hand of the bishop did not physically touch the head of the ordinand;³⁴ mediated touch, however, suffices; b) if the hand of the priest being ordained did not physically touch the chalice, paten, and host. Mediated touch suffices; for example, if the ordinand indeed touched the host and paten, but not the chalice, he is considered to have touched the chalice also mediately;³⁵ c) if, in the ordination of a priest, either wine in the chalice or a host upon the paten was lacking.³⁶

³⁴ Holy Office, July 4, 1900.

³⁵ Cf. Holy Office, May 8, 1895; March 17, 1897.

³⁶ Cf. Holy Office, July 6, 1898; January 11, 1899; January 17, 1900.

Caius, recently converted to the Catholic faith and often obliged to give to heretical friends a reason for the faith, asks a confessor what answer must be given to a difficulty recently proposed against the Apostolic Bull. For someone wrote as follows in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 1896: “The theological argument is very nebulous. Its defenders are not sure of its meaning. As every one knows, the English ordinations are declared invalid on account of defective form and intention. A French writer has shown that the defect of intention is inferred from the use of a defective form. But English critics of the Bull have shown that what is lacking in our form is lacking also in other forms which are recognized as valid by the Roman Church; indeed in the ancient Roman form itself. Father Bernard Vaughan replies hotly that the fault is attributed not to the form in itself, but to the employment of the form in a new and defective sense. That is to say, the defect of form results from a defective intention. The two arguments combined will make an excellent circle.” P. 796. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a sacrament, and what is essentially required for its validity?

2. What kind of change suffices to invalidate the matter or form of a sacrament?

3. How does the Bull Of Apostolic Care demonstrate that Anglican ordinations are invalid?

4. What answer must briefly be given to Caius?

1. What is a sacrament and what is essential to its validity?

A sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace ordained by Christ for the sanctification and salvation of our souls. Three things are necessary for the validity of a sacrament: the matter, the form, and the minister who makes the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 21.

2. What sort of a change is sufficient to invalidate the matter or form of a sacrament?

If a substantial change be made in the matter or form of a sacrament, the sacrament is destroyed. The matter will be substantially changed if in the estimation of ordinary men it is no longer the same, but something else. The form will be substantially changed if the sense is no longer the same.²

2 Ibid., 22.

3. How does the Bull Apostolicae curae show that Anglican ordinations are invalid?

By appealing to precedent and by showing that the form and intention expressed in the Anglican Ordinal are essentially defective. From the time of the legation of Cardinal Pole to England, Orders conferred according to the Anglican Ordinal have always been considered invalid by Rome; all references to the power of consecrating the Eucharist and offering up the Sacrifice of the Mass were excised from the ordination rite, thus showing a want of intention to ordain true priests.

4. A brief answer to Caius. The theological argument of the Bull is clear, and Catholics have no difficulty about its meaning. The defect of intention is not inferred from the defective form, but it is clearly expressed in the changes made in the form for the purpose of cutting out all references to a sacrificing priesthood, which the reformers rejected. There is a great difference between a form which has been altered with the intention of excluding all express references to a sacrificing priesthood, and a form which has not been so altered. The Bull shows that the Anglican Ordinal belongs to the first class, and that thus it has been rendered invalid, whatever might be said of its sufficiency in itself. From this it is clear what the Bull means by defective form and intention, and that it does not argue in a circle.