The nature, matter and form of Orders

450. Concerning Effects in General. 1. There are distinguished the orders which are sacraments: the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. Their effects are:

a. An increase of sanctifying grace, of virtues, and of gifts, since order is a sacrament of the living;

b. Sacramental grace, or a right to actual graces, by which the office received and its obligations can be duly fulfilled;¹

c. An indelible character, by which the soul is assimilated to Christ, the supreme priest and pastor of souls;²

d. An indelible spiritual power, by which the one ordained can exercise the functions of the order received.

a. Effects which consist in the conferral of sanctifying grace are not obtained except by those who approach ordination worthily; but effects which consist in the impression of character and in the conferral of peculiar power are obtained by all who validly receive order.

b. The sacrament of order generally imprints character. But if it is asked concerning the individual orders whether they imprint character, according to the more common opinion of theologians in any sacrament a new character distinct from the others is imprinted. It is manifest that non-sacramental orders do not imprint character.

2. Other orders are those which are not sacraments: the subdiaconate and the minor orders. Their effects are:

a. Spiritual power for performing certain ecclesiastical functions.

b. Actual graces conferred by force of the prayer of the Church for worthily exercising the power handed over.

Between orders which are sacraments and orders which are not sacraments there is this difference: the former produce an effect of grace ex opere operato, but the latter from the prayers of the Church and from the pious acts of the ordinand himself.

¹ 2 Tim. 1, 6-7.

² Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 4.

451. Effects of First Tonsure. First tonsure, which is conferred before orders as a disposition to orders, is not numbered among the orders, because through it spiritual power is not conferred, which belongs to the nature of order. Therefore the Council of Trent says that those who are marked with tonsure can ascend to orders.¹

From ecclesiastical institution first tonsure produces several effects and communicates great privileges to the cleric:

a. It transfers the tonsured man from the lay state to the clerical state.

b. It confers the privilege of forum, by which he is exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular forum.

c. It confers the privilege of canon, by which it happens that all who strike him injuriously incur excommunication.

d. It makes him capable of an ecclesiastical benefice.

e. It makes him capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

f. It makes him suitable for receiving orders.

¹ Sess. 23, c. 2. Cf. however Cn. 950.

452. Effects of Minor Orders. 1. The four orders which are called minor are not sacraments, but sacramentals, since they are of ecclesiastical institution; for before the third century they had not been instituted. Moreover the Greek Church instituted some, the Latin Church others.

Most scholastics with St. Thomas had taught that the minor orders are sacraments;¹ but today among theologians the opinion which denies the nature of a sacrament to the minors has become almost common.² Since it is established that the minor orders do not occur in the Church before the third century, and afterward were not everywhere conferred in the same manner and number, some theologians, in order that they can attribute the nature of a sacrament to them, affirm that the minor orders from the institution of Christ are contained in the diaconate, but that the power of separating them from the diaconate and conferring them distinctly was given by Christ to the Church, which indeed the Church in the course of time effected in reality.

2. The power which the individual orders confer:

a. The ostiariate hands over to the ordinand the power of guarding the church and opening and closing its doors, of summoning the faithful to sacred functions, and of keeping off the unworthy, namely infidels, heretics, and excommunicated persons.

b. The lectorate hands over the power of reading the sacred Scriptures publicly in church, of singing the lessons, of teaching the uninstructed the elements of the Christian faith, and of blessing bread and new fruits.

c. The exorcistate hands over the power of imposing hands over the possessed and reading exorcisms approved by the Church for putting demons to flight.

d. The acolyte hands over the power of carrying lights for the sacrifice of the Mass and of ministering wine and water in solemn Mass. Therefore the acolyte is preferred to the other minor orders; for those marked with these minister directly only around the people, although in order to the Eucharist, but the acolyte, since he serves with the deacon and subdeacon in the sacrifice of the Mass, ministers directly to the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The functions of these orders today, ecclesiastical discipline having changed, are partly abolished and partly, with a few exceptions such as exorcisms, are exercised even by laymen.

¹ St. Thomas, 4, dist. 24, q. 1, a. 2, qc. 2; Suppl., q. 35, n. 2.

² Cf. Pesch VII, n. 577 ss.

453. Effects of Major Orders. 1. Nature of sacrament. It is not certain that the subdiaconate has the nature of a sacrament; for since formerly it was generally counted among the minor orders, only from the eleventh century onward did it commonly begin to be numbered among the greater and sacred orders.

That the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate have the nature of a sacrament is certain.¹

Whether the episcopate is an order distinct from the presbyterate, or a certain extension and complement of the priesthood itself, is disputed. Nevertheless this is more commonly affirmed: that the episcopate cannot be validly conferred before the priesthood has been conferred; but the other orders certainly can be validly conferred when the preceding ones have not yet been conferred.

2. Their power. a. The subdiaconate hands over the power of ministering at the altar in solemn Mass, solemnly singing the epistle, and washing palls and corporals.

b. The diaconate hands over the power of immediately ministering to the priest in solemn Mass and in other sacred functions, and of solemnly singing the Gospel. But this power of ministering extends also to the administration of solemn baptism and of holy communion, yet from the permission of the ordinary or parish priest to be granted from a just cause; and the power of publicly singing the Gospel extends also to the power of preaching from the commission of the bishop.

c. The presbyterate hands over power over the real body of Christ, or the power of consecrating, and over the mystical body of Christ, or of remitting and retaining sins, of feeding the faithful people, that is, of administering the remaining sacraments which do not require the episcopal order, of handing on Christian doctrine, and of blessing the people.

d. The episcopate perfects and completes sacerdotal power, because it hands over the power of confirming, ordaining, ruling the faithful people once legitimate jurisdiction has been received, and consecrating things pertaining to divine worship.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 3.

454. Concerning the Matter and Form of Minor Orders. 1. Minor orders are conferred by the delivery of instruments alone. Hence, for minor orders to be conferred validly, the bishop must hand over the instruments to the ordinand, and the ordinand must receive and touch them. Therefore the remote matter is the instruments proper to the individual orders; the proximate matter is their delivery.

2. It must be noted that there is a great difference between orders which are sacraments and those which are not sacraments. For these latter are of ecclesiastical institution, and therefore it belongs to the supreme pontiff to determine the form and mode by which these orders ought to be conferred. Therefore he can change the rite if he wishes, and can supply and heal by his will defects, if any have occurred in ordination. For this reason it is not necessary that the safer things be chosen in the ordination itself, but it is enough that we follow probable things; for if in reality some defect occurs, the Church supplies it, so that the ordination is certainly valid. But in the conferral of those orders which are sacraments, we must altogether follow the safer things; for a defect which renders an order of this kind invalid cannot be supplied by the Church or healed after the fact.

3. Although the minor orders, and probably also the subdiaconate, are not sacraments, nevertheless they too have their own matter and form, on the right use of which their valid conferral depends. Their matter and form certainly consist in those things and words which are prescribed by the supreme pontiff in the Pontifical for the conferral of those orders; for since it belongs to the supreme pontiff to determine them, and since it is certain that he determined matter and form for the individual orders, which are prescribed in the Pontifical, there can be no doubt about this matter.¹

¹ Cf. Lehmkuhl II, 586 (n. 733), whose observations are altogether worthy to be read attentively.

455. Matter and Form of Minor Orders in Species. 1. In the ostiariate the proximate matter is the delivery of the keys of the church, which each one must touch with the right hand while the pontiff says: So act, etc.

Although by the prescription of the Pontifical at least two keys are to be handed over, nevertheless for value one suffices, whatever it may be, whether of a church or oratory or of a profane house, whether metal or wooden.¹

2. In the lectorate the proximate matter is the delivery of the book of lessons, which each one touches with the right hand while the pontiff says: Receive and be, etc.

The book to be handed over can be a missal, breviary, or volume of holy Scripture;² if a ritual is handed over, the ordination does not seem invalid.³

3. In the exorcistate the proximate matter is the delivery of the book of exorcisms, the ritual, which each one touches with the right hand while the pontiff says: Receive and commit to memory, etc. In place of the book of exorcisms the Pontifical or the missal can be used.

4. In the acolyte the proximate matter is: a. the delivery of the candlestick with an extinguished candle, which matter each one touches with the right hand while the pontiff says: Receive the candle-bearer, etc.; b. the delivery of the empty cruet, which each one touches in the same way while the pontiff says: Receive the cruet, etc. To the words of the bishop they respond: Amen.

From custom the candlestick and candle ought to be touched, and immediately the cruet itself. Nevertheless the ordination would not be invalid if either the candle alone or only the candlestick were touched, and thus the candle mediately, and the cruet only mediately through the basin.

¹ S. C. R., May 11, 1820; S. C. de prop. fide, September 27, 1843.

² S. C. R., September 27, 1783.

³ Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 686.

456. Concerning the Matter and Form of Major Orders. 1. What the matter and form of the individual orders are cannot be determined certainly. But the controversy which is conducted by dogmatic theologians on this matter is of lesser importance for practice, since we must intend that orders be conferred and received certainly validly. Therefore in conferring and receiving these orders it is necessary everywhere to follow the more probable and safer things, both lest the sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity and so that the precept of the Church be observed, which prescribes that all these rites be used under grave obligation.

2. The subdiaconate is conferred by the delivery of instruments alone, and the episcopate by the imposition of hands alone. In the diaconate and presbyterate both occur: the delivery of instruments and the imposition of hands. Whether each matter is required for the essence of the sacrament is disputed. That the imposition of hands alone is the essential matter is urged by these reasons: a. because the episcopate is conferred by it alone; b. because the Greek Church in these orders uses only the imposition of hands; c. because the Roman Church itself used this alone for several centuries. Nevertheless, in order that ordination be certainly valid, both must be used.

The reason why the delivery of instruments is nevertheless considered as an essential rite is that some judge that Christ the Lord did not determine matter and form specifically in the sacrament of order, but left them to be determined by the Church, and that the Church determined this matter and form as essential.

3. The form of the subdiaconate is certainly the words which are uttered by the bishop in the delivery of the instruments, and the form of the episcopate the words which are uttered in the imposition of hands. But in the diaconate and presbyterate they are the words which are uttered in the imposition of hands, and, if the instruments belong to essential matter, also the words which are recited in their delivery.

457. Matter and Form of Major Orders in Species. 1. The proximate matter of the subdiaconate is twofold: a. the delivery of the empty chalice with the empty paten placed upon it, which each one touches with the right hand while the pontiff says: See, etc.; b. the delivery of the book of epistles, the missal or Bible, which each one touches in the same way while the pontiff says: Receive the book, etc.

2. The proximate matter of the diaconate is twofold: a. the imposition of the right hand of the bishop on the head of each ordinand with this form: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc.; b. the delivery of the book of Gospels, the missal or Bible, which each one touches with the right hand while the pontiff says: Receive the power, etc.

3. The proximate matter of the presbyterate is twofold: a. the imposition of the hand of the bishop reciting as form the prayer: Hear us, with the preface which immediately follows; b. the delivery of the chalice with wine and water and of the paten placed upon it with a host, while the pontiff says: Receive the power of offering, etc.

Three impositions of hands occur in the ordination of a priest: a. the first is that by which the bishop extends both hands over the head of each ordinand, saying nothing; b. the second is that by which the bishop, together with the priests, holds the right hand extended over the ordinands, saying: Let us pray, dearly beloved brethren, etc., Hear us, etc., with the preface: Holy Lord, etc.; c. the third is that by which after communion he imposes both hands on the head of each, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Whether only one of these impositions, or two and which ones, or all are necessary for the essence of the sacrament, they dispute. Nevertheless this last does not seem to be required for the essence of the sacrament, as appears both from the fact that it is performed after the new priests have already consecrated with the bishop, and from the fact that in antiquity this imposition was not made, but afterward seems to have been added so that by a visible sign it might be shown that the power of remitting and retaining sins is contained in the sacerdotal power conferred on those ordained.¹

4. The proximate matter of the episcopate is the imposition of the hands of the consecrator, and the form seems to be the prayer which accompanies this imposition. Although other things, such as the imposition of the book of Gospels upon the neck and shoulders of the one to be consecrated and the words: Receive the Holy Spirit, do not seem essential, nevertheless in practice they must be observed as if they were essential.

a. If in the chalice which in ordination to the presbyterate is handed over to be touched there is no wine, or the wine which is contained there is invalid matter, the ordination is doubtful and therefore must be repeated conditionally. The same must be said if either no host or an invalid host is placed upon the paten to be touched by the ordinand. But if the bread and wine are only illicit matter, the ordination is certainly valid.²

b. In the ordination of a subdeacon and priest, it is required not for the value but only for the liceity of ordination that the instruments, namely the chalice and paten, be consecrated. St. Alphonsus judges (n. 747) that in practice the opinion which requires consecrated vessels is to be followed. Nevertheless, theoretically the opposite doctrine seems true, because by no law are consecrated instruments required for valid ordination, and for the symbolic representation which the Church intends in handing over the instruments, even non-consecrated instruments suffice.³

¹ Cf. Gasparri II, n. 1069 and n. 1074.

² The Holy Office, July 6, 1898 and January 17, 1900, decreed that ordination was to be repeated conditionally because in the ordination the host upon the paten was lacking; and on January 11, 1899 it decreed the same because a chalice without wine had been handed to the priests being ordained.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 905.

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.

459. Concerning the Imposition of Hands. 1. The imposition of the hand upon the head of the ordinand must be made by physical or bodily touch, but mediate touch suffices, as if the head of the ordinand is covered by a little cap.¹

If the hand of the bishop did not physically touch the head of the ordinand, and the defect is detected during the ordination itself, but before the third imposition of the hand, the imposition with physical touch must be supplied, which can be done in the ordination itself. But if the defect is detected only after the third imposition or after the ordination, the whole ordination is to be repeated conditionally.² If in the ordination of the diaconate physical touch was not present, its repetition would have to be made even after the presbyterate had been received.

2. Ordination is to be repeated conditionally if the first imposition of hands was omitted by the bishop;³ likewise if the second was omitted, even if the first was made and all the prayers were duly uttered.⁴ But the ordination is valid if the bishop had the hand extended at least immediately before⁵ or immediately after⁶ the prayer: Let us pray, brethren, or extended the hand during the same prayer.

If in ordination the imposition of hands at the prayer: Let us pray, brethren, was omitted, the ordination is valid, provided the repetition of the form and the imposition of hands were made before the delivery of the instruments.⁷

3. If, after the first imposition of hands has been made, the right hand is not extended by the bishop or by the priests while other priests impose hands, the ordination is valid and nothing must be supplied, provided the extension of the right hand was made while the bishop pronounced the prayer: Let us pray, brethren.⁸

According to the Roman usage, which the Sacred Congregation of Rites decreed must be observed, the extension of the right hand is to be made as soon as the individual priests have performed the first imposition, not by all at once when all have completed the first imposition. And this extension of hands ceases when the prayer: Let us pray, brethren, ceases.⁹

4. The ordination is valid even if the assisting priests omit the second imposition of the hand while the prayer or exhortation Let us pray, brethren, is read.¹⁰

5. If the bishop erred in pronouncing the words which accompany the third imposition of hands, e.g., by saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are retained, and whose thou shalt retain, they are forgiven, the same imposition with its form must be supplied secretly, either by the same bishop or by another.¹¹

¹ Holy Office, June 22, 1892.

² Holy Office, August 19, 1851; July 4, 1900.

³ Holy Office, July 4, 1900.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, March 31, 1888.

⁵ Holy Office, November 30, 1898.

⁶ Holy Office, December 14, 1898.

⁷ Holy Office, March 3, 1899.

⁸ Holy Office, September 12, 1877; March 17, 1897; Sacred Penitentiary, March 31, 1888. The Holy Office, July 6, 1898, decreed that ordination was to be repeated in which the ordaining bishop, while he recited the prayer Let us pray, brethren, had his hands joined at first before his breast and then separated, but did not extend the right hand over the ordinands.

⁹ S. C. R., August 31, 1872, n. 3274.

¹⁰ Holy Office, July 6, 1898.

¹¹ Holy Office, December 9, 1897.

460. Concerning the Touch of Instruments. 1. In order that the ordination be certainly valid, each must be touched, both the chalice with wine and water and the paten with the host; but it suffices that they be touched only mediately.

For just as the bishop must hand over each matter, so the ordinand must accept each, which the concept of delivery requires. Moreover just as in offering the sacrifice of the Mass each matter must be consecrated, so in ordination each must be touched. S. C. C., May 28, 1796, decreed that an ordination was to be repeated entirely in which the ordained man had touched the paten, but not the chalice. Yet recently two decrees of the Holy Office have been issued: one, May 8, 1895, by which the ordination of a priest who doubted whether he had touched the chalice is declared valid; the other, March 17, 1897, by which the ordination of a priest who had touched the host with the paten, but not the chalice, although he tried to touch this with his finger, is declared valid. From these declarations Lehmkuhl thinks it certain that the touch of each instrument is no longer necessary for valid ordination;¹ but Gennari judges that through these decrees the state of the question is not changed, yet that the ordination is at least doubtful.² And rightly indeed, because the sacred congregation by these decrees does not determine what is necessary by law, but only says that in a case of doubt one must acquiesce.

2. He who touches the host, but not the paten, is validly ordained; for through the host he mediately touches also the paten. And he who touches the chalice and paten, but not the host, is likewise validly ordained, because the touch of the host is not required, as is clear from the Roman Pontifical.³

3. Moral unity or simultaneity between the touch of the instruments and the pronunciation of the form suffices. Therefore both he is judged validly ordained who first touched the chalice and then, when the bishop uttered the form, only the paten with the host;⁴ and he who first touched the instruments but could not touch them when the form was being uttered.⁵

4. The touch of instruments probably must be physical, but it suffices that it be done with one hand or by some intervening veil or glove; for he who thus touches a thing mediately is truly said to touch.

5. If in sacred ordination the book is not handed over or is not touched, the ordination is not to be repeated; but the defect must be supplied by the bishop.

¹ Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 692.

² Gennari, Consultazioni morali canon. liturg. I, cons. 102.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 904.

⁴ Holy Office, March 17, 1897; January 17, 1900.

⁵ Holy Office, March 17, 1897.

THE priesthood of the New Law is not a mere office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel: Our Lord instituted it and gave it the power of offering the sacrifice of his Body and Blood and of forgiving sins.¹1 This power is conferred on priests by the sacrament of Orders, which also gives the grace to those who are rightly ordained to perform their sacred functions worthily. Those functions are various, and partly by divine institution, partly by ecclesiastical, they have been divided and assigned to separate grades of a spiritual hierarchy. The perfection of the priesthood and the whole of its powers reside in the episcopate; some portion of what bishops possess is communicated to the inferior ranks of the clergy by a special rite for each grade. Thus Orders is one sacrament, but the different ranks of the clergy participate in it in different degrees, or in other words, there are several Orders. There are three major or sacred Orders, to which by ecclesiastical law is annexed a solemn vow of chastity, and there are four minor Orders. The sacred Orders are the priesthood, the diaconate, and the subdiaconate; by the minor Orders are ordained acolytes, exorcists, lectors, and door-keepers.

It is a moot point among theologians whether all these Orders are sacraments or not; more probably only the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate are sacraments and of immediate divine institution, the rest being of ecclesiastical institution. Those Orders which are sacraments impress a character on the soul.

The first tonsure, by which a lay person is made a cleric, is certainly of ecclesiastical institution and is not a sacrament.

¹ Trent, sess. xxili, c. I.

The matter of the minor Orders is the handing to the cleric the symbols of the office to which he is ordained, and the words which accompany this act constitute the form. There is a controversy whether the handing to the subdeacon of an empty chalice with the paten alone, or also the giving to him of the book of epistles, is the matter of the subdiaconate, and similarly with regard to the form. It is also a matter of controversy whether the imposition of hands alone is the matter of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, or the handing to the ordinand the symbols of his office, or whether both together constitute the matter. There is the same difference of opinion with regard to the form, but these questions belong to dogmatic theology.

In practice, the rite prescribed for ordination in the Pontifical must be observed, and if anything be omitted which even probably belongs to the essence of the sacrament, the whole must be repeated again, at least conditionally. Thus, if in the ordination of a priest the chalice with wine and the paten were not handed to the ordinand to touch while the bishop pronounced the appropriate form of words, the whole ordination would have to be repeated before one thus ordained could be allowed to say Mass. Similarly, if the imposition of hands is omitted which precedes and accompanies the prayer and preface which are said by the bishop and which contain the form, the whole rite must be repeated. On the contrary, if the third imposition of hands which accompanies the prayer, “ Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.,” is omitted, this portion of the rite alone need be supplied afterward, as it is certain that it only belongs to the integrity of the sacrament, not to its essence.

Although previous reception of the priesthood is more probably necessary for the valid ordination of a bishop, the inferior Orders do not seem necessary for the valid ordination to the priesthood.

Whether three co-consecrators are necessary for the validity of an episcopal consecration is disputed, but at least the Pope can give faculties to have only one consecrating bishop.

The functions of those who are in minor Orders, with the exception of exorcists, may, according to modern discipline, be exercised by laymen,

I. In conferring any Order whatever, the minister is to observe exactly the proper rites described in the Roman Pontifical or in other ritual books approved by the Church, which it is licit in no way to omit or invert (canon 1002).

II. The Mass of ordination or of episcopal consecration must always be celebrated by the minister of ordination or consecration himself (canon 1003).

III. If someone, already promoted to some Orders in the oriental rite, has obtained from the Apostolic See an indult for receiving higher Orders in the Latin rite, he must first receive in the Latin rite the Orders which he has not received in the oriental rite (canon 1004).

IV. New priests must recite the Mass together with the Bishop, beginning from the Oblation, or from the words Suscipe Sancte Pater. Those things which are sung by the Bishop are read by them.¹ Concerning the intention to be formed by them, see the treatise on the Holy Eucharist, n. 160.

V. All promoted to major Orders are bound by the obligation of receiving Holy Communion in the ordination Mass itself (canon 1005). Therefore those promoted to minor Orders are not bound by the obligation. For the rest, priests are certainly bound under grave obligation, since it is a question of completing the sacrifice by them; with respect to the others, the grave obligation is not sufficiently established (St. Alphonsus, VI, 801).

VI. The obedience which priests promise to the Bishop in ordination is understood as that which is owed according to the canons. Nevertheless, there remains for them the liberty of embracing the religious state, unless the Church would suffer grave detriment from the departure (St. Alphonsus, VI, 828),² or the ordinand, by institution of the Holy See, is bound by oath to devote his work to the good of his diocese or of the missions (canon 542, 1°).

VII. Finally, the minister of ordination at the end enjoins these things on the ordained: "Let each one promoted to first tonsure or to the four minor Orders say once the seven penitential psalms with the Litanies, versicles, and prayers. Those promoted to the Subdiaconate or Diaconate, the nocturn of that day. But those ordained to the Presbyterate, after your first Mass, say three other Masses, namely one of the Holy Spirit, another of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, and the third for the faithful departed." Now that by these words a true obligation is imposed seems to be deduced from the very tenor of the words and from the accurate assignment of the matter; but a grave obligation is not sufficiently signified (St. Alphonsus, VI, 829). For the rest, note:

1. By the Nocturn of that day is understood the single Nocturn of the feria or the first Nocturn of Sunday or of a feast, according as the ordination took place on a feria, feast, or Sunday; nevertheless the Bishop can also assign another Nocturn instead of the first.³ For the Nocturn the Psalms with antiphons suffice, without readings, invitatory, and hymn.⁴

2. The Masses to be said must be votive Masses, unless a feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary occurs or the Mass to be said is of the Holy Spirit. They must be said, moreover, as soon as it is licit for them to be said. But since only the quality of the Mass is prescribed, the application is free and therefore a stipend can be received for them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 829).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, November 12, 1831, ad 11, n. 2682; September 20, 1749, n. 2404.

² Benedict XIV, Constitution Ex quo dilectus, January 14, 1747.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 27, 1899, n. 4042.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 10, 1893.

The Matter and Form of the Various Orders in the Latin Church.—(a) In the Minor Orders the matter consists in the bestowal of the symbols of office, and the form in the words of ordination that accompany this bestowal. The porter is ordained when he touches with his right hand the keys of the church which the bishop presents to him with the words: “Conduct yourself as one who must give an accounting for the things that are under those keys”, the reader, when he touches the lectionary (i.e., Missal, Breviary, Bible) offered him by the bishop with the form: “Receive this book and announce well the Word of God, knowing that, if you perform your office faithfully and usefully, you shall receive a portion with those who from the beginning have been good ministers of God’s word”; the exorcist, when he touches the book of exorcisms (e.g., the Ritual, Pontifical or Missal) presented to him with the words: “Receive and commit to memory and have power to impose hands on the possessed, whether baptized or catechumens”, the acolyte, when he touches the symbols of his office (i.e., first the candle and candlestick, next the empty cruet), while the words are said: “Receive this candlestick and candle and know that you are deputed to light the lamps of the church, in the name of the Lord”; “Receive this cruet to furnish the wine and water for the Eucharist of the blood of Christ, in the name of the Lord.” “Amen” should be added by the acolyte after each form.

(b) In the subdiaconate, ordination is given when the candidate touches the empty chalice and the paten (the Bishop saying: “See what a ministry is committed to you; I admonish you, therefore, so to conduct yourselves that you may be pleasing to God”) and the Book of Epistles, such as Missal or Bible (the Bishop saying: “Receive the Book of Epistles and have power to read them in the holy Church of God, both for the living and for the dead. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”).

(c) Pope Pius XII in an official decree, an Apostolic Constitution of Nov. 30, 1947 (see AAS, 40-5), determined the essential elements of ordination to diaconate, priesthood and episcopate. Formerly this had been a matter of discussion among theologians. In the diaconate ordination is given by the single imposition of the hands of the Bishop that occurs in the rite with the words of the “Preface,” of which these are the essential: “Send into him, We ask, O Lord, the Holy Spirit, by which he shall be strengthened by the gift of Thy sevenfold grace for the faithful performance of the work of the ministry.”

(d) The matter of the priesthood is the first imposition of hands of the Bishop which is made in silence. The form consists in the words of the “Preface” of which these are the essential and required for validity: “Give, we ask Thee, omnipotent Father, to this Thy servant the dignity of the priesthood ...”

(e) In episcopal consecration the matter is the imposition of the hands of the consecrating Bishop; the form is the “Preface,” the essential words being: “Fill out in Thy priest the fullness of the ministry....”

It is a disputed matter whether the episcopacy is a distinct Order from the priesthood or simply an extension of it. The common opinion favors the negative side and consequently maintains that the consecration of a Bishop is not sacramental. Accordingly, the supreme Order of Priesthood includes the simple priests or presbyters and the high priests or bishops. The episcopacy confers no new power in reference to the Eucharist, but it extends the character of the priesthood to new powers in reference to Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.

What is order? - Order can be taken in two ways: for ordination, or that action by which sacred power is conferred, and for the order itself, or sacred power, the effect of ordination. "The name of order," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 2 ad 4, "is taken in two ways. For sometimes it signifies the relation itself; and thus it is both in the inferior and in the superior..., and thus it is not taken here. But sometimes it is taken for the grade itself which makes order taken in the first way. And because the notion of order is found where first something superior to another occurs, therefore here an eminent grade by spiritual power is named order." - Order, or ordination, is a sacrament of the New Law by which spiritual power is handed on in relation to the Eucharist, and grace is conferred for duly undertaking ecclesiastical duties. But order, the effect of the sacrament, is the aforesaid spiritual power which is bestowed on the ordained. The orders indeed are various, but through all there is a tendency toward priesthood, and therefore toward the ministry of the altar. Therefore there is one power of all, a part of which is bestowed on each, and from all there is had one sacrament. "For the whole fullness of this sacrament is in one order, namely priesthood, but in the others there is a certain participation of order... And therefore all orders are one sacrament." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 1 ad 2. - Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, 3, c. 2, 3; Decree Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 49, 50, 54, 55; L. 744, 745; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 1-3; q. 35, a. 2; q. 36, a. 3; q. 37, a. 1; E. M.

What is the effect of this sacrament? - Sanctifying grace; sacramental grace for duly undertaking the sacred mystery; the impression of character. Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, 4, c. 4; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 35, a. 1, 2. But character is impressed not only in the priesthood, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 1; but also in the diaconate, St. Thomas, ib. ad 5; in the subdiaconate, St. Thomas, q. 38, a. 1 ad 2; in the acolytate, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 2; and in the other minor orders, but by no means in first tonsure, St. Thomas, q. 40, a. 2 ad 2. But cf. 880. According to St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 40, a. 5 ad 2, a new character is not impressed in the episcopate; but it is more commonly asserted that a distinct character is also impressed in the episcopate. Cf. 878. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. confer.; Roman Catechism 34; L. 378.

How many orders are there; what is their division; what sort of institution do they have? - In the Latin Church there are seven: Ostiariate, Lectorate, Exorcistate, Acolytate, Subdiaconate, Diaconate, Priesthood, which is distinguished into Presbyterate and Episcopate. "The multitude of orders," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 1, "was introduced in the Church for three reasons..., for commending the wisdom of God..., for relieving human infirmity..., that a broader way of advancing might be given to men." But the sacrament of order is ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of sacraments. "And therefore the distinction of orders is to be taken according to relation to the Eucharist." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2. Whence suitably only seven orders are recounted. For indeed "the power of order is either for consecration of the Eucharist itself, or for some ministry ordered to this sacrament of the Eucharist. If in the first way, thus it is the order of priests... But the cooperation of ministers is either in order to the sacrament itself, or in order to those receiving. If in the first way, thus it is threefold: 1. for there is the ministry by which the minister cooperates with the priest in the sacrament itself as regards distribution, but not as regards consecration..., and this pertains to the deacon...; 2. there is the ministry ordered to preparing the matter of the sacrament in the sacred vessels of the sacrament itself, and this pertains to subdeacons...; 3. there is the ministry ordered to presenting the matter of the sacrament, and this belongs to the acolyte... The ministry ordered to the preparation of recipients cannot be except over the unclean, because those who are clean are already fit for receiving the sacraments. But there is a threefold kind of unclean persons... For some are altogether unbelievers not wishing to believe, and these must be kept entirely even from the sight of divine things and the assembly of the faithful; and this pertains to doorkeepers. But some are willing to believe but not yet instructed, namely catechumens; and for their instruction the order of lectors is ordained. Therefore the first rudiments of the doctrine of faith, namely the Old Testament, are committed to them to be read. But some are instructed faithful, yet having an impediment from the power of the devil, namely energumens; and for this ministry there is the order of exorcists." St. Thomas, l.c. - "In the primitive Church, because of the fewness of ministers, all lower ministries were committed to deacons... Nevertheless all the aforesaid powers were present, but implicitly in the one power of the deacon. But afterward divine worship was enlarged, and the Church handed on explicitly in different orders what it had implicitly in one order." St. Thomas, l.c. ad 2; Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, ib. C. 17, de Ref.

In the Greek Church for many centuries there have been only four orders, namely Presbyterate, Diaconate, Subdiaconate, Lectorate. The duties of doorkeeper and acolyte are attributed partly to the lector, partly to the subdeacon. But the Greeks do not have the exorcistate as a true order. Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n. 7. But whether formerly they had more is disputed by the learned. Cf. Theology of Wurzburg, n. 54.

The seven orders are divided in the Latin Church so that the first four are called minor and non-sacred orders, the latter three major and sacred, because the former approach more remotely, the latter more closely, to the Eucharist, the end of all orders. Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, c. 2. - Now an order can be denominated sacred according to a certain common reason, and in this way all orders are sacred, as those which speak not of a profane or secular power, but of a sacred or ecclesiastical power. It can also be denominated sacred properly, insofar as it signifies a certain special prerogative not fitting to all orders. If sacred order is taken in this way, it has a threefold acceptance. 1. By reason of the power itself conferred through ordination, and thus an order is called sacred insofar as it bestows spiritual power of serving more closely in the sacrifice of the altar. In this sense priesthood, diaconate, and subdiaconate always seem to have been sacred orders. For Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, says that the names and proper ministries of each of the seven orders have been in use from the very beginning of the Church; and ibid. C. 17, de Ref., that the functions of holy orders from the diaconate to the ostiariate have been laudably received in the Church from the times of the Apostles. 2. By reason of the solemn vow of chastity annexed to the order, and in this sense the subdiaconate was not always a sacred order. 3. By reason of the hierarchy of prelacy or principality, and in this way only priests and deacons are placed by the Fathers in sacred order, since clerics of the other orders do not preside over the people, but only minister to priests and deacons. Trent, sess. 23, C. 4, c. 6; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 3; 4, d. 24, q. 2, a. 1, qc. 3 ad 1, ad 5; Wurzburg, n. 66, 68, 69.

As the subdiaconate was not always held as a sacred order, so it also was not always held as a major order in a special sense, as is clear from C. A multis 9, de Aetat., etc., praeficiend., where Innocent III, in the year 1207, from the fact that the subdiaconate was now numbered among the sacred orders by reason of chastity to be observed, established "that a subdeacon can freely be elected as Bishop, just as a deacon or priest." Hence the subdiaconate, which before was counted among the minor orders for this reason, that he could not freely be elected as Bishop, began to be numbered among the major ones. Freely; since before, except for cause of utility, and then also except by permission of the Metropolitan or Roman Pontiff, the election could not be held. Further, if it was already numbered among sacred orders in the time of Gregory and Urban II, in the year 1091, as is clear from the cited C. A multis, and from C. Miramur 7, de Serv. non ordinand., it was also absolutely counted among the major orders, "because they also ministered at the altars." And indeed the Council of Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, says: "subdiaconate is referred to the major orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils." From C. Non oportet 26, Dist. 23; C. Nullus 4, Dist. 60, subdeacons did not have permission of entering the Sacrarium and touching the Vessels of the Lord; namely the sacrarium in which, after the mysteries had been completed, the Eucharist was replaced by deacons, and the sacred vessels placed on the altar at the time of sacrifice, or containing the Body and Blood of Christ. Cf. Wurzburg, n. 70.

As regards the institution of the aforesaid orders inferior to the priesthood, it is certain by faith: that the institution of ministers as such, insofar as under this name come those who serve the priesthood, abstracting from the diverse grades which can be found in them, is of divine right; for this is expressly defined in Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, c. 6. But that the institution of the individual orders which we have enumerated is disjunctively either of simply or immediately divine right, or at least of mediately divine right, namely from power divinely granted to the Church: this is evidently had from c. 2. - But that each was immediately instituted by Christ the Lord is not agreed among authors as regards the subdiaconate and the minor orders. Yet an affirmative response can be given with great probability from c. 6 of Trent compared with c. 2 and de Ref., C. 17. - Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 10; E. M.

What are the individual orders; what are the offices of each? - Ostiariate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of opening and closing the door of the church, and of admitting the worthy and excluding the unworthy. "And therefore it must be said that he receives power so that he can do this from office; although it can also be done by others, but not from office.

And so it is in all the acts of minor orders, that they can licitly be done by others, although they do not have any office for this, just as Mass can also be said in a house not consecrated, although the consecration of a church is ordered to this, that Mass be said in it." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 4. Besides, it belongs to the doorkeeper to strike the cymbal and bell for calling the people to church; to open the book for him who preaches; to assist at the sacrifice of the Mass, taking care lest anyone approach the sacred altar nearer than is fitting and interrupt the priest doing the divine thing; to guard the keys of the Temple, the door, and the things which are within the church. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. ostiar.; Roman Catechism 15.

Lectorate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of reading from the pulpit in church the books of the New and Old Testament, but especially those which are accustomed to be read during the nocturnal psalmody. It also belongs to him to hand on to the faithful the first rudiments of the Christian Religion, but not to preach. Besides, it belongs to the lector to bless bread and all new fruits. But today these blessings are performed by priests alone. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. lect.; Roman Catechism 16; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 36, a. 2 ad 3; q. 37, a. 4 ad 8.

Exorcistate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of casting out demons from energumens, whether baptized persons or catechumens, St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 8. Nevertheless the faculty of exorcizing is reserved only to priests, who can use it only by permission of the Ordinary. And priests can use it also as regards possessed infidels. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 11, 1779, Collectanea, n. 1980; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 8. It also belongs to the exorcist to say to the people that whoever is not communicating should give place, and to pour water in the ministry. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. exorc.; Roman Catechism 17.

Acolytate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of lighting the lights of the church and of preparing and presenting for the Eucharist the cruets of wine and water. Therefore his duty is to minister to the priest himself in private Mass, and in solemn Mass to attend upon and assist the greater ministers, subdeacons and deacons, in the ministry of the altar. Besides, he carries and keeps the lights when the sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated, but especially when the Gospel is read, from which he is called by another name, candle-bearer. "The acolyte serves the deacon by carrying the candle before him to the Gospel, and the cruet by which he serves the subdeacon." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 38, a. 1 ad 2. "The more principal act of the acolyte is that by which he ministers with the cruet, than that by which he ministers with the candlestick." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 6; a. 4 ad 6, 7, 8. Roman Pontifical, de Ord. acol.; Roman Catechism 18.

Subdiaconate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of serving the deacon in solemn Mass and solemnly chanting the Epistle. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 3, ad 4, ad 6; a. 5 ad 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 2. For he must prepare the sacred linens, vessels, bread, and wine necessary for the use of the sacrifice; offer the chalice and paten to the deacon for the use of the sacrifice; provide water to the Bishop and priest when they wash their hands in the sacrifice of the Mass. As a witness he assists at the sacred rite; and he prevents the priest doing sacred things from being disturbed by anyone. It also belongs to him to wash the palls, corporals, and purificators, and to carry the cross in processions. The principal act of the subdeacon consists "in this, that he cooperates concerning the matter of the sacrament." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 38, a. 1 ad 2; Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. subd.; Roman Catechism 19. - "In a case of necessity, provided no other is present, a cleric who is not a subdeacon can perform the office of subdeacon in solemn Mass." S. R. C., July 22, 1848, ad 4, Floren. Nevertheless he cannot wear the maniple. S. R. C., July 17, 1894, Dubior., ad 7.

Diaconate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of immediately assisting the priest in solemn Mass and solemnly chanting the Gospel. Its more principal act is over the Body of Christ contained in the vessel. "Whence it does not belong to him to touch the Body of Christ, but to carry the Body on the paten and dispense the Blood with the chalice." The secondary act is solemnly to chant the Gospel. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 5; a. 4 ad 3, ad 4, ad 6; q. 38, a. 1 ad 2. It also belongs to the deacon, from commission, to preach, baptize, and distribute Communion. But whether a deacon, in order to preach at some time, needs the special permission of the Bishop, or whether the permission of the pastor or rector of the church suffices, seems to have to be determined from particular statutes or custom. - "It pertains to him to follow the Bishop perpetually, to guard him when preaching, and to be present to him and to the priest doing sacred things or administering other sacraments, and to read the Gospel in the sacrifice of the Mass. Formerly he often stirred up the souls of the faithful so that they would attend to sacred things; he also ministered the Blood of the Lord in those Churches in which that custom existed, that the faithful would receive the Eucharist under both species. Besides, the dispensation of ecclesiastical goods was committed to the deacon, that he might supply to each person what was necessary for living. - It also pertains to the deacon, as the eye of the Bishop, to investigate who in the city pass their life piously and religiously, and who otherwise; who come to the sacrifice and sermon at stated times, and who again do not come... He must also recite the names of catechumens, and set before the Bishop those who are to be initiated by the sacrament of order. - Besides, if the Bishop and priest are absent, it is lawful for him to explain the Gospel, but not from a higher place, so that it may be understood that this is not his proper duty." Roman Catechism 20; Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. diac.

Presbyterate or priesthood is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ, and also of remitting and retaining sins. From the former comes his principal act; from the latter his secondary act. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 8; a. 5 c. ad 2. - "And because someone is made in proximate disposition to the Eucharist by this, that he is cleansed from sins, therefore the proper minister of all the sacraments which are instituted principally for the cleansing of sins is the priest, namely of baptism, penance, and extreme unction." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 1. - It also belongs to the priest to effect various blessings, and to feed the people of the Christian faithful by word and example. Trent, sess. 23, C. 1, c. 1; Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. presb.; Roman Catechism 25.

Episcopate is an order by which there is conferred on someone a special power of confirming the faithful and ordaining ministers of the sacraments, and also of consecrating things pertaining to divine worship. Ministers of the sacraments, in the broader sense, namely not only those who confect the sacraments, but also those who from office minister to those confecting them. To Bishops it also belongs to govern the Church of God. Trent, sess. 23, C. 4, c. 6, 7; Roman Pontifical, de Consecr. episc.; L. 736, 747, 805; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2.

Note: "Since the consecration which is done in the sacrament of order is ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is the principal act of each order according to which it is more proximately ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist. And according to this also one order is more eminent than another, according as one act is more proximately ordered to the aforesaid sacrament. But because many things are ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist as to the most worthy thing, therefore it is not unfitting that, besides the principal act, one order also have many acts, and so many more as it is more eminent, because the higher a power is, the more things it extends itself to." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4.

Is episcopate an order distinct from presbyterate? - "St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and others deny, who say that it is an extension of the order of presbyterate. But Bellarmine, Tournely, etc., more commonly affirm, both because in it a distinct character is handed on, and a special power toward the Eucharist, namely of constituting the ministers of this sacrament; and because the order of episcopate is conferred through imposition of hands, and through the form, Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Nor is it valid to say that if episcopate were a distinct order, a Bishop could at least validly be ordained, although he were not a priest; for the response is that this is required by divine ordination, just as it is required that one be baptized who wishes to be confirmed or ordained." L. 378. - According to the first opinion of St.

Thomas, just as in the ordination of a priest, in the last imposition of the hand and through the words, Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., there would not be a new distinct order, a new distinct sacrament, a new distinct character; so episcopate and priesthood are not two orders in number, but one order in number, nor two sacraments in number, but one sacrament in number. Whence by the ordination of a Bishop the priestly power is extended, which is the principal one, and thus also the priestly character is extended, which is the principal one; and therefore not so much is a new character conferred, as a certain perfection and extension of the priestly character, since the one power is completive and perfective of the other. - Benedict XIV, Constitution In postremo, § 10, 17; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 40, a. 5; q. 35, a. 1 compared with q. 38, a. 1 and Lesson 3 on 2 Timothy; Sylvester Maurus, Opus Theologicum, t. 3, q. 265, n. 29.

What is first tonsure and how is it conferred? - First tonsure is not an order, except broadly, but only a disposition to orders, by which someone becomes a cleric, namely is transferred from the lay state into the lot of the Lord, and is deputed to divine worship; and becomes capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, an ecclesiastical benefice, and clerical privileges. Trent, sess. 23, C. 2, ibid. C. 6 de Ref. - But it is conferred by the cutting of the hair or of an assumed head of hair, S. R. C., Sept. 25, 1846, n. 2919, and by the words, The Lord is my portion, etc., and also by the handing over of the surplice through a suitable minister, from the institution of the Church. Each one, when he is tonsured, says: The Lord is my portion, etc.; these words "let even the Bishop pronounce according to custom." S. R. C., Nov. 12, 1831, Marsor., ad 3. - L. 734, 735; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 40, a. 2; Roman Pontifical, de Cler. fac.; Roman Catechism, n. 13, 14.

Are the individual orders sacraments? - That the presbyterate is a sacrament is openly clear from Trent, can. 1, 2, 3, 6, taken together. - As regards the diaconate and episcopate, this is drawn from the same Trent; since from c. 6 there is had the divine institution of Bishops and ministers, and therefore at least of deacons; but from c. 4 there is had that grace is annexed to the conferral of episcopate and diaconate. For those words, Receive the Holy Spirit, which from Trent are truly significative and collative of grace, the Bishop pronounces not only in the ordination of a priest, but also in the ordination of a deacon and in the consecration of a Bishop.

Finally, that the subdiaconate very probably, and the minor orders also, are each more probably sacraments, is deduced from the Florentine Decree for the Armenians, where all orders are equally recounted under the sacrament of order; matter and form of the sacrament are assigned for all, and the minister of the same sacrament of order is indicated, ordinary and extraordinary; this extraordinary minister can be affirmed only of the minor orders and subdiaconate. A similar argument can be made from Trent; for C. 3 and c. 3 say indefinitely that order or sacred ordination is a sacrament. Besides, in the obvious and natural sense in the aforesaid C. 3 and c. 3 there is question of order or sacred ordination, about which discussion was had in C. 1 and 2, c. 1 and 2. But there is question there of order insofar as it comprehends not only presbyterate, but also the other orders. Cf. also can. 6 and chap. 2 and 4 together. Moreover this is confirmed from the character which is impressed both in subdiaconate and in minor orders according to what is deduced from the Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. confer., and Roman Catechism, n. 34. - Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 9. Cf. here n. 892.

St. Alphonsus 736, 737, 755 holds it probable that all orders are sacraments; but more probable that only presbyterate and diaconate are sacraments; and very probably that episcopate also is a true sacrament distinct from presbyterate. But St. Thomas clearly teaches, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2 ad 1 and a. 3, that they are sacraments. "Whence since character is a sign distinguishing from others, it is necessary that character be impressed in all orders; of which this also is a sign, that they remain perpetually and are never repeated. And this is the third opinion, which is more common"; Suppl., q. 35, a. 2.

What is the matter of ordination? - It is various for the various orders. - In minor orders the matter is only the handing over of the instruments; namely the instruments are the remote matter, the handing over of the same the proximate matter. Therefore it is necessary that the ordaining one present them to the one to be ordained, and that the one to be ordained receive or touch them with the hand, as the practice of the Church and the words of the form suggest. St. Thomas, III, q. 34, a. 5 ad 3. Further, the instruments of ostiariate consist in the keys of the Church; yet it suffices for validity to use any keys whatever apt for opening, and even one. The instruments of Lectorate are the codex of Sacred Readings, i.e., the Missal, Breviary, or Volume of Sacred Scripture, or book of the Scriptures; of Exorcistate, the book of Exorcisms, or the Ritual which contains exorcisms, in place of which the Pontifical or Missal can be handed over; of Acolytate, empty cruets, or at least one empty cruet, and, more probably, a candlestick with an extinguished candle. In place of the candlestick there cannot be a hand-candle or palmatory. S. R. C. 2194 ad 4, 4035 ad 5, 3315 ad 5; Roman Pontifical.

The matter of major orders is, in subdiaconate, only the handing over of the instruments, namely of the empty chalice with the empty paten placed upon it, both by precept and, probably, by necessity of the sacrament, consecrated, and, more probably, of the book of Epistles, i.e., the Missal, or of Sacred Scripture both of the New and Old Testament; in diaconate, the imposition of the right hand, and, more probably, also the book of the Gospels; in presbyterate, the imposition of hands and the chalice with wine, and the paten placed upon it with a host, and therefore to be handed over together because of the unity of the sacrifice. But which is essential, whether the handing over of the instruments alone, from the Florentine Decree for the Armenians, or the imposition of hands alone, which alone the Greek Church uses, or both, which the Latin Church uses, is disputed. Hence St. Alphonsus 741 says it is more probable that a Latin is validly ordained by the matter assigned to the Greeks, namely by the imposition of hands alone, and conversely; but probably invalidly. Therefore in practice the altogether safer opinion is to be chosen. Finally, the matter of episcopate is the imposition of hands and, probably, the imposition of the book of Gospels. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; Council of Carthage, can. 2; Roman Pontifical, de Consecr. episc. But the handing over of the book of Gospels does not seem essential; for when the book is handed to the elect, he is already called consecrated in the Pontifical. - Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, c. 4; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Pontifical; L. 739, 745-749; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 5; q. 37, a. 2, 4, 5; q. 38, a. 1 ad 1, ad 2; Theology of Wurzburg 108; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 10; E. M.

What is the form of order? - As concerning the matter in major orders, so concerning the form of the sacrament the doctors do not agree among themselves. In Episcopate the words of the form are: Receive the Holy Spirit. There are those who add the prayers which follow in the manner of a Preface as if determining the aforesaid words toward episcopal consecration. Cf. n. 883, 4. For the various matter which is assigned in presbyterate, some consequently wish the form to consist in the words which are recited by the Bishop in the imposition of hands, others in the words which the Bishop pronounces in the handing over of the instruments, others in both words. In diaconate the words are: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Receive the power, etc. - In subdiaconate the words are: See, etc. Receive, etc. - But the words in the other orders are those which accompany the handing over of the instruments from the Roman Pontifical. In Ostiariate the words are: Thus act, etc. In Lectorate, in Exorcistate, in Acolytate the words are: Receive, etc. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 4; E. M.

Note: "In conferring sacred Orders it is required that by the same Bishop who pronounces the form, the matter be handed over, because, since such is the usage of the Church, thus Christ is judged to have instituted it: so St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 38, a. 1 ad 2.... But he teaches otherwise in the conferral of minor orders. - If orders are conferred by a Bishop, but with another celebrating Mass for him, the ordination will be valid, but illicit, as the Sacred Congregation declared in the year 1715 before Clement XI, and Innocent XIII confirmed in the Congregation held Feb. 5, 1722." L. 744; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 11, n. 7.

In the ordination of subdeacons, over two or three touching with the right hand the chalice with the paten, the form can be pronounced by the Bishop: See, etc. But in the ordination of priests the chalice with wine and water and the paten with the host must be handed to each, and the form must be repeated for each in the singular. Roman Pontifical, de Ordin. Presb.

Authors are not lacking who hold that the form of the diaconate, in the imposition of the hand, is not those words: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., but the following prayer: Send forth upon them, we ask, O Lord, etc., which, while the Bishop pronounces it, he holds his right hand extended. Pesch, de Ordine, n. 630, 631, holds this opinion; I. Jorget, in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, v. Diacres. And Gasparri, de Ordine, Paris, 1894, n. 1044, 1049, holds that the form is the eucharistic prayer in the manner of a preface, in the middle of which now the imposition of the hand is made, which in the ancient liturgy preceded the simple prayer and the eucharistic prayer. But the common opinion, founded on the Council of Trent, sess. 23, de Ord., can. 4, holds that those words, Receive the power, etc., are the form, since they are not said by the Bishop in vain, and consequently the Holy Spirit is then given, that is, "then the sacrament is confected and its grace is conferred." St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 749.

In the ordination of the presbyterate the Bishop imposes hands three times: 1. when he imposes hands with physical touch, saying nothing; 2. when together with the priests he extends his hand over those to be initiated and pours forth the prayers: Let us pray, dearly beloved brothers, etc., which are the form; nor are there lacking those who hold that the form also is, or rather is, the prayer Hear us, etc., with the following Preface; 3. when after Communion he says: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Further, the necessary imposition of hands is not the first, as is certain among all, says St. Liguori 748, but either the second, when the Bishop extends hands with the priests, or the third, or both.

Those who contend that only the imposition of hands is the matter of the presbyterate take their argument from the Greeks, who are ordained by the imposition of hands alone; and they stand for the second imposition of hands, for after it and before the third imposition of hands, the ordained already consecrate the Eucharist together with the Bishop. And they say that by it there is also handed on at the same time power over the real and mystical Body of Christ, namely over the Eucharist to be confected and over sins to be absolved. Those who stand for the handing over of the instruments and the imposition of hands argue from the Florentine Decree for the Armenians, and from Trent, sess. 23, c. 4, and the ancient and constant practice of the Church as regards the imposition of hands. According to this opinion, by the handing over of the instruments there is handed on power over the real Body of Christ, and by the third imposition of hands there is handed on power over the mystical Body of Christ.

Hence there is another opinion, and it is to be held at least practically and consequently, that both the second and third imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments are the necessary matter of this sacrament. But the variety of the Latin and Greek Church is explained from the fact that Christ instituted the matter and form of this sacrament in general, and left to the Church the power of determining it in species, and of changing it for just causes, provided it uses things and words expressing that handing on of power, the effect of this sacrament. By the second imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments, power over the real Body of Christ is handed on; but by the third, power over the mystical Body of Christ is handed on, and each can be considered after the manner of one moral thing, as namely one imposition of hands, morally speaking, distributed into two parts.

Indeed the first imposition of hands also, and indeed with physical touch, seems necessary, and to constitute still one imposition of hands together with the second. The reason is that if the form is lacking in the first imposition of hands, bodily touch is lacking in the second imposition of hands. But if it is said that the first imposition of hands constitutes, together with the second imposition of hands, which is the continuation of the former, one imposition of hands, then every difficulty vanishes, and each is had: bodily touch and form. But each imposition of hands must precede the handing over of the instruments. Holy Office, May 3, 1899; July 4, 1900; Aug. 22, 1900; Monit. Ecclesiast., vol. 11, p. 148; vol. 12, p. 193, p. 291. For the form Receive the power, which accompanies the handing over of the instruments, completes the preceding imposition of hands with the prayer which accompanies it. Therefore it can well be said that by the first and second imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments, power over the physical Body of Christ is conferred; but by the third imposition of hands there is conferred on the priest power over the mystical body of Christ. "The Lord gave the disciples priestly power, as regards the principal act, before the Passion at the Supper... But after the Resurrection he gave them priestly power as regards the secondary act, which is to bind and loose." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 5 ad 2. But physical touch suffices, even mediated, if, for example, the head of the ordinand is covered by a skullcap. Holy Office, June 22, 1890.

There are those who, relying on the Leonine Sacramentary of about the sixth century, hold that the form in the presbyterate is the prayer Hear us and the following Preface. Therefore, whether "in the ordination of a priest the extension of the hand both of the Bishop and of the priests prescribed by the Pontifical must be made not only within these words: Let us pray, dearly beloved brothers, up to Let us bend the knees; but also after the genuflection within the Prayer which begins: Hear us, up to the Preface, so that the genuflection only interrupts, but does not make that extension cease? Resp. In the ordination of priests the practice of the Roman Church is to be observed, which imposes hands on the ordinands only in the first prayer: LET US PRAY, DEARLY BELOVED BROTHERS." S. R. C., Feb. 18, 1843, Anicien.

Amen, which the Pontifical prescribes to be answered in the handing over either of matter or of sacred vestments in ordination, is to be said by the ordinand himself according to custom. S. R. C., Nov. 12, 1831, Marsor., ad 6.

A Bishop cannot be validly ordained except by another Bishop. But several things concur for such ordination in this order: namely the imposition of the book of Gospels over the neck and shoulders of the ordained, and the imposition of hands of three Bishops with the form corresponding to each: Receive the Holy Spirit. And these are essential. But the aforesaid words pronounced absolutely are referred only to episcopal consecration. Therefore the following prayers up to the anointing of the head do not seem also to be required, so that the aforesaid form may be restricted to episcopal consecration. But there follows the anointing of the head or crown of the ordained, the anointing of the hands of the ordained, after which the elect is called consecrated in the Pontifical. Then there is had the handing over of the staff, ring, and book of Gospels. Roman Pontifical; Wurzburg 108. - The consecration of a Bishop is valid if the imposition of the book is made not before, but after the imposition of hands. Holy Office, July 30, 1901. Likewise it is valid without the anointing of the head and hands, although this is not to be omitted. Trent, sess. 13, de Sacr. ord., c. 5; sess. 7, de Sacr. in gen., c. 13. "But whether the assistance of three Bishops is required for validity outside the case of necessity? It is certain 1. that this is required by necessity of precept from Nicaea I, c. 4, and from Carthage II, c. 7. It seems certain 2. that, from the commission of the Pontiff in a case of necessity, ordination is validly done by one Bishop... But to the question some say that three are altogether required... for thus Pope Damasus wrote in Epistle 4 against the Chorepiscopi: For that they are not Bishops who are ordained by fewer than three Bishops is evident to all. Others nevertheless deny... The reason is that in the Roman Pontifical only one of the Bishops is called consecrator, but the others assistants; for in other sacraments only one minister is required... Each opinion is probable, whence in practice the first must altogether be followed." L. 755; Brief of Pius IV, Aug. 11, 1562; Brief of Leo XIII Trans oceanum, Apr. 18, 1897; Holy Office, March 13, 1669; A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 580; vol. 29, p. 661; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 1207, 1208; Authentic Decrees of the S. R. C., n. 186; Benedict XIV, Constitution Qua sollicitudine, Feb. 21, 1725; de Syn., l. 13, c. 13; Kenrick, tr. 20, n. 12.

If in the ordination of a subdeacon and deacon the handing over of the book of Gospels and the book of Epistles has been omitted, it is to be supplied. If in the ordination of a priest the third imposition of hands has been omitted, it is likewise to be supplied. The reason is that although these rites are essential, they are nevertheless only integrally essential, i.e., for integrating the power already handed on as regards the secondary act. Therefore they must indeed be supplied, but the whole ordination must not be repeated. - If the handing over of the chalice and paten has been omitted in the ordination of a subdeacon, the imposition of the hand in the ordination of a deacon, the first or second imposition of hands or the handing over of the instruments in the ordination of a priest, the whole ordination of the priest and deacon is to be repeated under condition, and that of the subdeacon absolutely. The reason is that, as regards the ordination of a priest, probably the essential matter is the imposition of hands alone; probably the handing over of the instruments alone; probably both, according to the various opinions. As regards the ordination of a deacon, probably the essential matter is the imposition of the hand; probably the handing over of the book of Gospels; probably both, again according to the various opinions. But as regards the ordination of a subdeacon, the essential matter is either only the handing over of the chalice and paten, or that together with the handing over of the book of Epistles. Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2, 4, 5; L. 746 ff. But by this essential matter power is conferred for the principal act; and therefore, when it is lacking, the whole ordination is to be repeated; and when it is doubtful, the ordination is to be repeated under condition. - E. M.; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 1431.

Is physical contact with the instruments required for the validity of ordination? - Resp. In the affirmative according to the more common and more probable opinion, altogether to be held in practice. "But Escobar, n. 184, rightly says that it suffices for validity that the matter be touched with one hand. And likewise rightly with the common opinion the same Escobar, l.c., and Palao, p. 4, n. 20, etc., judge that mediated touch suffices, namely if the chalice, paten, or book is touched through some veil or glove; for one who touches thus is said in everyone's sense truly to touch." L. 743; La-Croix 2155. "The very words of the form," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 5 ad 3, "seem to show that touch of the matter is of the essence of the sacrament, because it is said: Receive this or that." For moral contact a Response of the S. R. C., Dec. 3, 1661, Galliar., is brought forward: "To the scruple of Brother Ephrem Chasteau... namely that he had not touched the chalice by physical touch in his ordination to the presbyterate." For the Sacred Congregation responded: "That he could continue celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice without any scruple, and with a conscience altogether safe." But in this Decision no mention is made of the paten, and besides there is question of a scruple. E. M.

Is the ordination of a priest valid who received the paten with the host, but the chalice without wine and water? - There are theologians who judge the value of such an ordination to be at least speculatively probable. But the opposite seems more probable; for the power for offering the sacrifice, which includes the offering of each species, is one and indivisible. Therefore power cannot be handed on for consecrating one species without power for consecrating the other. But in the case, power cannot be handed on for consecrating the species of wine, since this is lacking. Therefore. Hence such an ordination is altogether to be repeated under condition, as Cardinal de Lugo affirms that it was in fact repeated when a case of this kind occurred, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 30, and as it was repeated from the Decision of the Holy Office, Jan. 11, 1899; as also it was repeated in a case of defect of the host from the decision of the same Holy Office, July 6, 1898; Jan. 17, 1900. Ferraris, supplement, v. Ordo, Ordinatio, n. 6; Monit. Eccles., vol. 11, p. 329; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 557. And it would also have to be repeated under condition if in the chalice the water had been mixed with wine in equal quantity, as was also resolved by the S. C. de Sacram., Nov. 6, 1910. - L. 750; E. M.

Is one validly ordained who immediately touches only the chalice, but not the paten? - The first opinion affirms, because the chalice and paten then morally make one thing. The second opinion denies, because in the Roman Pontifical the touch of both chalice and paten is prescribed; and likewise because then the touch of the paten would be moral rather than physical. St. Alphonsus 753 says that the first opinion is more probable, but that the second opinion is not improbable, "and therefore is to be held in practice; for which reason such a cleric is to be reordained under condition." - S. C. C., May 28, 1796, decreed that the ordination should be repeated entirely under condition for a priest who touched only the paten placed over the chalice, but not the chalice itself. The Holy Office, March 17, 1897, declared valid the ordination of a priest who touched the paten with the host, but did not touch the chalice, although he attempted to touch it with his finger; and on March 8, 1895, of a priest who doubted whether he had touched the chalice. But, as is clear, there was question of mere scruple. Monit. Eccles., vol. 16, p. 374. - E. M.

Is one validly ordained who touches the host but not the paten; and who touches the chalice and paten but not the host? - Resp. To the first: in the affirmative with the common opinion, which seems most probable from St. Alphonsus 751. The reason is that the host and wine are the substantial matter of order, by which power over the Body of Christ is principally signified, and the chalice and paten are used from the precept of the Church for decency alone. Besides, by touching the host he already at least mediately touches the paten, and mediated physical touch certainly suffices. Therefore practically one can well acquiesce. Holy Office, July 22, 1892. - To the second: also in the affirmative, with the common and truer opinion. The reason is 1. because then the host is touched through the paten; but immediate touch of the host is not prescribed by the Church, but only of the paten, as is clear from the Pontifical; 2. because wine in the chalice is never touched immediately; therefore neither is it required that the host be touched immediately. This opinion from the same holy Doctor 752 can well be called morally certain. Therefore again practically one can acquiesce. Holy Office, Jan. 17, 1900. - La-Croix 2152, 2153; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 2178; E. M.

Is the ordination of a priest valid who did not touch the chalice and paten while the form was being pronounced, but immediately after? - Resp. In the affirmative; the reason is that although physical union is not had, nevertheless moral union is had; but while moral union stands, the whole reason of the sacramental sign subsists. This is confirmed from the common authority of theologians; for although the opposite opinion has some authors for itself, nevertheless it is now so commonly abandoned that it seems to lack every probability. Likewise the ordination is valid if someone physically touches the paten with the host and then the chalice, or conversely, while the form lasts, as can easily happen while someone attempts to touch both; and also if by this attempt he lifts the paten from the chalice. Cf. 322; Holy Office, March 17, 1897; Jan. 17, 1900; D'Annibale, ed. 3, p. 3, n. 253; Busembaum 757; de Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 33; E. M.

Is he validly ordained to whom in subdiaconate there was given not an empty chalice, but one full of wine and water? - That ordination is probably valid. For although the chalice was full of wine and water, nevertheless from the intention of the ordaining Bishop ordaining him to the subdiaconate, it was sufficiently limited so that only the chalice according to itself was given, as contradistinguished from any content whatever. Therefore the chalice, although full, as subject to that intention and handed on in that way, still signified the diminution of power which the subdeacon receives in his ordination, which an empty chalice signifies better. Therefore from the defect of emptiness one cannot certainly argue a defect of valid ordination, but only illicit ordination, if that defect culpably happened. Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 30, n. 5; E. M.

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.

Does one lacking an order licitly and validly exercise the acts of the order? - "One lacking the order of priesthood or episcopate would invalidly exercise their duties. But those lacking other orders exercise them licitly, if the orders are minor; illicitly if they are major. Hence a cleric sins gravely who without order solemnly exercises the office of deacon or subdeacon, and incurs by the very fact irregularity and excommunication, but this latter ferendae sententiae from C. 1 and 2, de Cleric. non ordin. min." L. 754.

To n. 880.

Since it is altogether certain that Order generally and without any distinction is a sacrament, from this it must be concluded that not only the presbyterate and diaconate are sacraments, but also the subdiaconate and minor orders. "Whence... it is necessary that in all of them a character be imprinted." St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 35, a. 2, corpus; q. 37, a. 5.

But since the episcopate is at the summit, or in the enlarged grade of the priesthood, it seems certain that the episcopate is a sacrament. Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 3, 4; canon 4, 6.

And as regards the subdiaconate and minor orders, that they are sacraments is the far more probable and truer opinion, since it is logically altogether more conformable to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, sess. 23, both in the Chapters and in the Canons, and to the doctrine of the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Armenians, which is asserted, altogether gratuitously, to be of no value, nor does this seem capable of being affirmed with any solid probability.

"But the division of order is not of an integral whole into its parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potestative whole.... And therefore all orders are one sacrament." St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, a. 1, ad 2.

Nor certainly are there solid arguments against the asserted sacramental nature of the aforesaid orders, namely that they lack divine institution, that they lack matter and form, that they lack efficacy of grace; because such orders before the third century are never named, nor is imposition of hands had in them; and because there is one distinction of them in the Latin Church and another in the Greek Church. St. Alphonsus, book 6, n. 735, paragraph Patet; St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, aa. 2, 4, 5.

1. The proposed thesis, as is evident, does not concern Order in general: whether it is a sacrament. Luther, Illyricus, Chemnitz, and other Innovators denied it, but it is a most certain truth from Sacred Scripture and likewise from divine Tradition. And the very clear definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 23, canon 3, is indubitable and in no way controverted: "If anyone shall have said that Order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord, or is some human fiction devised by men inexperienced in ecclesiastical matters, or is only a certain rite of choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments, let him be anathema."

2. Nor likewise, in the proposed thesis, is it a question of the simple priesthood and of the diaconate. Concerning the simple priesthood: for the order of priests is divided in two, says Pope Anacletus, namely of Bishops, who are called first priests, and of presbyters, concerning whom Rabanus says: presbyters are men of the second order.

It is a most certain truth that the presbyterate, insofar as it is distinguished from the episcopate, is a sacrament. The Council of Trent, sess. 23, canon 1, affirms this in express words concerning the priesthood, at the same time declaring its intimate nature: "If anyone shall have said that in the New Testament there is not a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not some power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord, and of remitting and retaining sins; but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or that those who do not preach are not priests, let him be anathema."

In canon 2 the Council likewise affirms that besides the priesthood there are other orders; and therefore that the priesthood is an order, and the primary or supreme order of all, since all other orders are directed to it. "If anyone shall have said that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church orders, both greater and lesser, through which, as through certain grades, one tends to the priesthood, let him be anathema." Then follows canon 3, already related, in which the Council affirms that Order, or sacred ordination, is a sacrament. Therefore either the presbyterate most certainly is a sacrament, or order is not a sacrament.

3. Likewise it is a theologically certain truth that the diaconate is a sacrament. For the same Council of Trent says in canon 4: "If anyone shall have said that through sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not given, and therefore that Bishops say in vain: Receive the Holy Spirit; or that through it a character is not imprinted, or that one who was a priest can again become a layman, let him be anathema." But in the ordination of a deacon the aforesaid words also are said. Therefore in it also the Holy Spirit is given, and grace is conferred; and consequently, because it is a rite conferring grace, it is a sacrament.

Moreover, in canon 6 it is said: "If anyone shall have said that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of Bishops, Presbyters, and Ministers, let him be anathema." But among the several orders of ministers which the Council of Trent itself enumerates in chapter 2, from porter to deacon, the principal ones are deacons, who consequently are at least principally designated by the aforesaid canon 6. But again, the aforesaid hierarchy divinely instituted, according to the same Council of Trent, chapter 4, in reality is nothing other than the sacrament of order. Therefore there can be no doubt that the diaconate is a sacrament.

4. But from these things which have just been set forth, by logical deduction it follows that both the episcopate and the subdiaconate and the other minor orders are sacraments; concerning these alone there is a question in our thesis, because concerning these alone among Catholic doctors is the matter disputed.

5. And certainly, first, if Order generally and without any distinction is a sacrament, all orders consequently are a sacrament, since otherwise that Tridentine assertion, canon 3, "Order is truly and properly a sacrament," would be very equivocal. This assertion indeed does not distinguish between order and order in such a way that it includes the presbyterate and diaconate, but excludes the subdiaconate and the other minor orders, or even the episcopate if it is held as a distinct order. And if certainly that indefinite proposition "Order is a sacrament" includes the diaconate, as in reality it includes it, by the same reason it must include all the other orders. The logical reason for the inclusion of the diaconate in that indefinite proposition certainly can be no other than because it is a true order. But the other orders also, according to the Council of Trent, are true orders. Therefore they also are included.

6. And this reasoning is confirmed from the Council of Florence. For after it had said altogether generally and without any distinction: the sixth Sacrament is that of order, it immediately adds explicitly the presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, and the other orders. Therefore all are the sixth sacrament of order. And then it adds: the ordinary minister of this sacrament is the Bishop. Therefore this sacrament also has an extraordinary minister. But the extraordinary minister is only of the subdiaconate and minor orders; for concerning the diaconate the matter is very doubtful, although concerning the subdiaconate also there are authors both affirming and denying. Therefore all these orders are a sacrament.

And finally at the end the Council says: "The effect of this sacrament is increase of grace, so that someone may be a suitable minister." But the Council previously explicitly mentioned the ministries of the minor orders. Nor indeed can there be doubt that this is the right interpretation of the Council of Florence also from an extrinsic reason. For almost everything has been copied word for word from the Opuscule of St. Thomas On the Articles of Faith and the Seven Sacraments. And St. Thomas teaches the opinion proposed by us.

7. But let us return to the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent proceeds gradually in this way in the Chapters. In chapter 1 it asserts the existence of the priesthood and sacrifice, and order is not named. In chapter 2 it distinctly commemorates and enumerates all the orders which from office serve the priesthood and are the various grades by which one ascends to the priesthood. But in chapter 3 it says: Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. Therefore, just as it is impossible to restrict this sentence of the Council to the priesthood, so in like manner it is impossible to restrict the same assertion to the priesthood and the diaconate. Evidently such a restriction would come only from a preconceived opinion, and against the mind and handed-down doctrine of the same Council.

8. And the Council proceeds in altogether the same way in the Canons. In canon 1 it affirms the existence of the priesthood, without naming order. In canon 2 it affirms, besides the priesthood, greater and lesser orders tending to the priesthood. In canon 3 it affirms that Order is a sacrament. Therefore Order in the third Canon cannot be understood as any other order than the order which is explained in the second Canon, and which, besides the priesthood, at the same time comprises greater and lesser orders, all of which tend to the priesthood.

9. Moreover the Council of Trent, chapter 4 of the same sess. 23, affirms that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of order is constituted by divine law in the Church. Now this hierarchy, according to the same Council, is constituted from Bishops and from the other ecclesiastical grades. But the other ecclesiastical grades are not only priests and deacons, but all those who are numbered in the preceding chapter 2, so that through them an ascent is made to the priesthood, namely from porter to deacon. Likewise the aforesaid hierarchy divinely constituted in the Church, according to the same chapter 4, comprises not only Bishops, but the remaining inferior orders, the other orders. But the remaining orders, the other orders, are not only the presbyterate, nor only the presbyterate and diaconate, but all other orders enumerated by the Council itself in the preceding chapter 2. Therefore all are divinely instituted; and if they do not lack divine institution, they all are sacraments.

10. This indeed is expressly confirmed by canon 6: "If anyone shall have said that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers, let him be anathema." Ministers in this canon 6, which corresponds to chapter 4, are all those who are ministers in the same chapter 4; and these are all those whom it pertains to Bishops to ordain, and therefore all, namely presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, and the others. For it does not pertain to Bishops to ordain only presbyters and deacons.

Likewise Ministers in canon 6 are all those who pertain to the orders of ministers, which are in the most ordered disposition of the Church, as is had in chapter 2, and which comprise, according to the same chapter, all greater and lesser orders. Moreover, if the Council of Trent had truly wished to restrict the ecclesiastical hierarchy instituted by ordination to deacons, why, in place of saying "ministers," which is suitable to all ministers, did it not say "deacons"?

11. And if another proof is still needed, our conclusion is confirmed not a little from the fact that all the Theologians of the Council of Trent, with one only excepted, commonly attributed the nature of a true and properly so-called sacrament to the subdiaconate and minor orders. And consequently, as the very distinguished de Augustinis observes, the Tridentine Fathers, by approving the schema of doctrine and canons concerning the sacrament of order, which did not depart from the common opinion of theologians, yielded to this same opinion. De Ordine, art. 6, 2nd ed., Rome, 1887.

12. His Eminence Cardinal Louis Billot, in his treatise on Order, establishes this thesis XXIX: "The fullness of the sacrament of Order is in the Priesthood, but participation is in the orders of ministers. Wherefore even inferior ordinations are sacramental and imprint a character; nevertheless this is proposed as theologically certain only concerning the diaconate, but concerning the rest only as more probable and more consonant with the definitions of the Councils." Consequently His Eminence the Cardinal proves this thesis briefly indeed, but invincibly, especially from the Council of Florence, from the Council of Trent, and from St. Thomas.

13. And it is useful here to hear Peter Canisius, who, explaining against the heretics the summary of Catholic doctrine, with no controversy raised, simply affirms that all orders are sacraments. These are the very words of Canisius:

"What is the Sacrament of Order? It is that by which singular grace and spiritual power are handed over to certain persons, so that they may perform an office in the Church by profession. That is, the Sacrament through which, as through a door, there necessarily enter the legitimate dispensers of the mysteries and utterances of God, ministers of Christ and of the Church: Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and all finally who are rightly and with authority engaged in undertaking ecclesiastical offices. For no one, as Scripture testifies, takes or ought to take honor to himself, namely of exercising the ministries of the Church, except he who is called by God, as Aaron; that is, unless he has been initiated by the visible sacrament of ordination, and has been legitimately ordained by the Bishop, and sent to the work of a certain ministry, which he performs in the Church according to his state, according to the laws of divine and Apostolic tradition." Canisius, Opus Catechisticum, or On the Summary of Christian Doctrine, on Order, I.

"How many grades does this Sacrament contain in itself? Generally indeed it contains the minor orders and the major orders: namely the four minor orders, of Porters, Readers, Exorcists, and Acolytes; but the three major, namely of Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters. Moreover, among presbyters some greater and some lesser are found instituted by Christ." Canisius, loc. cit., IV.

14. And similarly from the Catechism published by command of Pius X on October 18, 1912, the sacrament of Order comprises all orders, both greater and lesser; and all orders, minor and major, pertain to the sacred hierarchy, nn. 397, 399, 400. And altogether the same was had in the other Catechism prescribed for the Roman Province by the same Pius X, June 14, 1905, part 4, chap. 8, where it is said that the Sacrament contains various grades of Orders, namely the presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, and minor Orders, from which the sacred hierarchy results.

15. Against this opinion the argument which is taken from the diverse numbering and distinction of orders in the Latin and Greek Church is indeed very weak. For they say: whatever the case may be, whether in the age nearest the Apostles the Greek Church had all minor orders, which Morinus indeed denies, now certainly it admits no other orders below the diaconate except the subdiaconate and lectorate, but the rest it has never numbered in its Euchologies for a thousand years and more.

Although Morinus denies that the Greek Church had minor orders from the time nearest the Apostles, others nevertheless affirm it, and Hallier proves it by several arguments.

And certainly an ancient author of the work On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy commemorates minor orders besides the subdiaconate and lectorate, and likewise the ancient author of the Letter to the Antiochenes, if St. Dionysius is not the true author of the former and St. Ignatius Martyr of the latter. The Synod of Laodicea also commemorates them; and St. Epiphanius numbers Exorcists and Doorkeepers among ecclesiastical ministers. Cf. Wirceburgenses, n. 54.

16. And if afterwards and in the present all minor orders in the Greek Church are not conferred individually, it certainly withdrew from the ancient custom in the course of time, which Innocent IV reprehends in the Greeks. Although it can be said that only the exorcistate is neglected by the more recent Greeks; the acolytate and porterate are conferred together with the subdiaconate, as is drawn from the very form of the subdiaconate which is used by the Greeks. Hence Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, concerning the rites of the Greeks, says that a Greek cleric, through the subdiaconate conferred in the Greek rite, is judged to have received the acolytate and porterate. Therefore these orders exist among the Greeks, although they are not conferred separately. And from Gabriel of Philadelphia it is established that the exorcistate also is conferred by other Orientals. Cf. Wirceburgenses, nn. 54, 55, 58, 59, 60.

17. But the diversity of the Latin and Greek Church in the essential rite of the sacraments is well explained from this, that Christ did not determine this rite in its lowest species. Hence among the Greeks, Copts, and Ethiopians the imposition of hands alone has been preserved. But the Latin Church added to it, for a certain greater signification and expression, the handing over of instruments, which alone it constituted for the subdiaconate and the other inferior orders.

18. Moreover, as regards the Greek Church, those things have force which are soon to be said concerning the Latin Church. For they say that before the third century the aforesaid orders, concerning which the whole controversy is, are never named before the third century: for first they are named by Pope Cornelius in the Letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, around the year 251.

19. But it can easily be answered that all the inferior orders were always implicit in the supreme order of ministers, that is, in the diaconate; and that it was left to the disposition of the Church to decide their explicit conferral in part or in whole, according as it would seem expedient. Whence St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 37, a. 2, ad 2, says: "that in the primitive Church, because of the small number of ministers, all the inferior ministries were committed to deacons... nevertheless all the aforesaid powers were present, but implicitly in the one power of the deacon. But afterwards divine worship was enlarged, and the Church handed over explicitly in diverse orders what it had implicitly in one order. And according to this the Master says that the Church instituted other orders." Namely, it did not institute them by its own authority, but conferred separately on several persons those instituted by the Lord, as the number of the faithful increased.

20. But it is one thing that the aforesaid orders first are found by us commemorated by Pope Cornelius; it is another thing that then for the first time they were introduced into the Church. Indeed, Pope Cornelius, by enumerating all by name, both greater and lesser orders, and affirming that they are present at Rome, implicitly affirms that they had already existed for a long time.

St. Justin Martyr, in the second century, died about the year 161, in the First Apology for Christians, n. 67, Migne, vol. 6, cols. 429-430, commemorates deacons and a reader, whose office it was to read in the Christian assembly the commentaries of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets: "Eita pausamenou tou anaginoskontos, then, when the reader has ceased..."

Likewise Tertullian, in the second century, died about the year 199, De Praescriptione, XLI, Migne, vol. 2, col. 57: "One man is bishop today, another tomorrow; today he is deacon who tomorrow is reader; today he is presbyter who tomorrow is layman: for they impose priestly duties even on laymen."

21. Hence it will not be very difficult to assert their divine institution, not without solid foundation. For their institution could well have been handed down by oral communication from Christ the Lord. And that this happened is to be said from the rule of Augustine. Namely, "What the universal Church holds, and has not been instituted by Councils, but has always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down only by Apostolic authority."

But that this rule suits our matter is manifest. For although no Council is found in which the orders lower than the diaconate were instituted, nevertheless we know that they have always been in the Church from the beginnings of the Church, and have always been constantly retained. And indeed the Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 2, treating of the seven orders, says: "Not only of priests, but also of deacons, the Sacred Scriptures make open mention, and they teach in most grave words those things which are chiefly to be attended to in their ordination; and from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the proper ministries of each one of them, namely of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter, are known to have been in use, although not in equal grade. For the subdiaconate is referred to the major orders by the Fathers and sacred councils, in which we very frequently read also concerning the other inferior orders."

But the aforesaid beginning of the Church, according to the Council itself, is referred to the times of the Apostles. For in the same session, chap. 17, de Reform., the Council wills "that the functions of holy orders from the diaconate to the porterate, laudably received in the Church from the times of the Apostles, and for some time interrupted in many places, be recalled to use according to the sacred canons."

22. The divine institution of all ministers can be explained in three ways. The first mode, which St. Alphonsus hands down, book 6, n. 735, derives the institution of ministers from the very institution of the priesthood, in which it was implicitly contained. After citing the text of Luke 22: "Do this in commemoration of Me," the Holy Doctor soon adds: "Where, although only the priesthood was ordained, nevertheless in it was contained the ordination of other ministers who serve Priests." And St. Thomas gives the reason, "because the inferior power is comprehended in the superior virtue, as sense in intellect and dukedom in kingdom." Supplement, q. 35, n. 5; q. 37, a. 1, ad 2 and ad 3; a. 2; a. 4. Cf. Scavini, Milan, 1874, on the Sacrament of Order, n. 528.

Another mode is brought forward by the very learned Struggl, tract IX, q. 3, art. 2, n. 22. The aforesaid Author says: "All Orders, namely the diaconate, subdiaconate, and all the other minor orders, were instituted by Christ, at least by the general institution of ministers of the Church."

Finally, the third mode is if it is said that all inferior orders were comprehended and instituted in the diaconate, and then by the power of the Church were separated from one another, as we have already heard from the Angelic Doctor. And hence it is evident that this difficulty of divine institution, as regards the subdiaconate and the other minor orders, is the same for the diaconate, concerning whose divine institution there is indeed certainty from the Council of Trent, but when and how it was instituted by Christ is not explained in particular in the Sacred Scriptures. Indeed, not even concerning the episcopate, whose divine institution is certain, is it certain when and how Christ instituted this sacrament. It is probably said that this was after the Resurrection, when He constituted the Apostles Pastors of the Church. For during those forty days Christ showed Himself alive, appearing and speaking of the kingdom of God. And, after the Resurrection, He also gave to the Apostles the power of remitting sins, when He had already instituted the sacrifice and priesthood at the Last Supper.

23. And could not also the exorcistate and lectorate have been instituted when Christ, before the institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper, sent His disciples two by two, conferring on them power of casting out demons and preaching the word of God? In Luke 9:1-2: "And having called together the twelve Apostles, He gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. And He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick." And 10:17: "And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Thy name." And in Mark 6:7: "And He called the twelve and began to send them two by two, and He gave them power over unclean spirits." And below, v. 12: "And going forth they preached that men should do penance." And v. 30: "And the Apostles coming together to Jesus reported to Him all things which they had done and taught." They had acted by expelling demons; they had taught by instructing the peoples, by which they were disposed and prepared for receiving the mystery of the Eucharist, which was to be instituted later. Besides, could we not also assert the institution of the acolytate and subdiaconate in the mission of the Apostles for preparing the place for eating the Pasch, indeed for instituting and receiving the Eucharist?

24. This objection concerning divine institution having been removed, another objection is to be removed from the efficacy of grace, which they say is not had in the subdiaconate and the other inferior orders, since in them the imposition of hands is not had, by which grace is conferred.

There can certainly be no doubt that grace is conferred by the imposition of hands in the Episcopate, in the Presbyterate, and in the Diaconate. Nevertheless it is altogether false that grace is not also conferred in the other orders because they do not contain the imposition of hands. For in the other orders there is had the handing over of instruments with the corresponding words; and therefore matter and form are in no way lacking in them, as is had from the Council of Trent itself, from the Council of Florence, in the Decree for the Armenians, from the Roman Pontifical, and from the Roman Catechism.

25. But that assertion is gratuitous. Nowhere is it said that grace in order is not given except by the imposition of hands. And from the fact that by this imposition of hands grace is conferred in some orders of a superior grade, it does not follow that it is not conferred by other rites in other orders of an inferior grade. Then the assertion seems false from the Council of Trent itself, which does not attribute grace in this sacrament either exclusively or simply to the imposition of hands, but generally to the signs by which the sacrament is effected.

By this assertion it again appears from the Council of Trent that Order as a sacrament comprises all orders, both major and minor. Behold the words of the Council, chapter 3, sess. 23: "Since by the testimony of Scripture, Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that through sacred ordination, which is effected by exterior words and signs, grace is conferred, no one ought to doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church."

26. Moreover, according to the Roman Pontifical, the Bishop "warns those to be ordained that they touch the instruments in the handing over of which a character is imprinted." From this warning it is evident both that all orders are sacraments and that the only rite efficacious of grace is not the imposition of hands.

And the Roman Catechism, n. 10, speaking of the Priesthood itself, has these very grave words, which well show how false is the assertion of the adversaries: "Wherefore the Bishop, offering to him who is ordained Priest the chalice with wine and water and the paten with bread, says: Receive the power of offering sacrifice, etc.; by which words the Church has always taught that, while the matter is presented, the power of consecrating the Eucharist is handed over, with a character impressed on the soul, to which grace is joined for duly and legitimately undertaking that office." And n. 34 attributes spiritual character to all orders.

Finally the Council of Florence, while not excluding the imposition of hands, brings forward no other rite of the sacraments except the handing over of instruments; and to this rite it evidently annexes the efficacy of grace, which, after the orders have been enumerated and their matter and form, it explicitly affirms at the end.

27. But the adversaries say that the Council hands down only an accidental rite. This assertion is false. For the Council declares at the beginning that the Sacraments "are effected by three things, namely by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament, with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."

It explains these three substantial things for the individual sacraments, and therefore also for order hands down substantial matter and form; whence again it is established that all orders, according to the Council of Florence, are sacraments, since it assigns the substantial matter and form of all. Moreover that it is not a question of a merely accidental rite, but of a substantial one, is established from the assertion of the Council itself, since it says: "The sixth sacrament is that of order, whose matter is that by the handing over of which the order is conferred." Therefore if order is conferred through the handing over of this matter, this handing over is altogether substantial.

28. But the adversaries press by another way, asserting that the Decree of the Council of Florence is of no value, since in it there is a question of a certain mere Instruction of the Armenians, for whose union the aforesaid Decree was issued. But it is one thing that this Decree does not contain in this matter a dogmatic definition ex cathedra; it is another thing, quite different, that the Decree reports only a certain mere opinion, and indeed a false one, according to the same adversaries. For by this Decree, with the Sacred Council approving and the orators themselves also consenting, the doctrine of the orthodox faith was proposed to the Armenians under a compendium.

The Decree is contained in the Bull of Eugene IV, Exultate Deo: "It was given at Florence in a public synodal Session, solemnly celebrated in the greater Church." As is had in § 3, the faith of the orators was examined beforehand, both concerning "other things pertaining to the orthodox faith and the rites of the universal Church" and concerning "the Seven Sacraments of the Church." And then in § 4 it is said: "We judged it expedient, lest in the future any hesitation concerning the truth of the faith be able to exist among those Armenians themselves, and that they may think the same in all things with the Apostolic See, and that the union itself may persevere stable and perpetual, without any scruple, that by this Decree, with this sacred Florentine Council approving, and the same orators also consenting to this, We should hand down to those orators, under a certain brief compendium, the truth of the orthodox faith which the Church professes concerning the aforesaid matters."

700. • 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.

701. • 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.

702. 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.

703. • 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.

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.

— Appendix XV belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XV.

— Ordination, which was taken for the creation of magistrates, in the Church designates the creation of sacred ministers. Hence c. 948, which deliberately abstains from the word sacrament of order, has: "Order, from the institution of Christ, distinguishes clerics from laics in the Church for the rule of the faithful and the ministry of divine worship." This canon is to be compared with c. 107 concerning the divine origin of the distinction of clerics from laics.

But the sacrament of Order is the sacrament by which, through a sacred rite used by a competent minister, spiritual power is conferred together with grace for worthily undertaking the sacred offices. The power chiefly regards the sacraments, or those things which are referred to the sacraments, as chrism, oil of the sick, etc. With this power is connected the power, at least radical, of preaching the word of God, of ruling the people of God, of blessing.

Order taken actively is the same as ordination, and designates the action by which that spiritual power is conferred; but passively, it designates the effect of that action, or the aptitude conferred. It can also signify the collection of persons who have been endowed with sacred power, or the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

This sacrament is a certain potential whole, so that several parts can exist separately and be conferred separately, which are had together by him who possesses the fullness of order.

— In the Latin Church there are now distinguished three major or sacred orders: subdiaconate, diaconate, presbyterate or priesthood, which is twofold: lesser or incomplete, and greater, which is the episcopate; and four minor orders: porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte.

Are the minor Orders a sacrament? Most today deny this, relying chiefly on historical reasons, by which they show that these orders did not exist before the third century, have varied in number, and are not now the same in the Latin and Greek Church. Yet those grave arguments are not strictly apodictic, if you consider that the sacrament of order was instituted by Christ as a potential whole, and that it is not repugnant to that institution that the Church could have distinguished new grades to which a partial power contained in a greater grade would be committed. Therefore the opinion of St. Th., in 4 Sent., d. 24, q. 1, art. 2, q. 2, or Suppl., q. 35, a. 2, and of most scholastics, who admitted the nature of a sacrament to be present in all orders, can be defended (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, V, n. 886; Noldin, III, 452; Bucceroni, III, 880).

It is established, however, that the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate are sacraments, from Trent itself, sess. XXIII, cap. 3 and can. 6: "If anyone shall say that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers, let him be anathema." These ministers at least are deacons.

Moreover the episcopate is a sacrament so distinct from the simple presbyterate that not only do inferior priests lack the power conferred through episcopal consecration, but also, at least according to several, the episcopate does not contain the simple presbyterate, and, if priestly ordination has been passed over, it would be conferred invalidly; while, on the contrary, the ordination is valid of a deacon who has received no inferior order, and the ordination is valid of a priest who has not previously been ordained deacon. Although the Church most gravely prohibits ordinations "by leap" and commands that omitted formal ordinations be supplied.

— But first tonsure, since it confers no power, is not a sacrament, but an initiation into the clerical state, by which clerics are distinguished from laics. Yet the Church, in its conferral, wills that the norms concerning conferring sacraments be observed; and therefore the words "to ordain, order, ordination" include, besides episcopal consecration, all orders and first tonsure itself, "unless something else is drawn from the nature of the matter or the context of the words" (c. 950).

— Certain orders are called sacred, either because of the annexed vow of chastity, or because of the power given over consecrated things. The same are called major, because they approach more closely to the sacrifice itself, or rendered men fit for undertaking the greater offices. I say rendered, because no longer, after the Code, can a subdeacon or deacon be co-opted among bishops.

— But the sacrament of order imprints a character. Therefore it can neither be lost nor repeated. This, at least from ecclesiastical institution, also holds concerning minor orders and first tonsure.

— First tonsure is conferred by this essential rite: that the bishop or competent prelate cuts the extremities of the hairs, and he who is tonsured says: "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my chalice; You are He who will restore my inheritance to me." The omitted handing over of the surplice is neither essential nor seems to have to be supplied. Nor for validity is it required that the one conferring tonsure himself pronounce the words before him who is tonsured, although the custom of pronouncing them thus is said to be observed. Is tonsure validly conferred if the bishop, in place of true hairs, cuts the hairs or locks of a false wig? The matter is not established. Therefore, if one's own hairs are altogether lacking, it will be safer to have recourse to the Holy See (cf. Gasparri, n. 1011).

Minor ordinations and the subdiaconate consist essentially in a certain handing over, as proximate matter, and in the words of the bishop or ordaining minister then pronounced, as form.

To the porter are handed the keys of the church. It is not essential that the porter close and open the door, or strike the bell. For validity it is enough that one key be handed over, although the rubric commanding that keys be handed over is to be observed; and they can be silver, iron, or wooden, provided they are apt for opening (Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, March 11, 1810, Collectanea P. F., ed. 1, n. 1189); and any keys suffice (Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, March 13, 1844).

To the lector is handed the book of readings, or the codex from which they are to read, that is, either a Missal, or Breviary, or volume of Sacred Scripture.

To the exorcist is handed the book in which the exorcisms are written, but in its place the Pontifical or Missal can be handed over.

To the acolyte are handed a) the candlestick, for which there cannot be taken the instrument with candle which the bishop is accustomed to use at the book; b) the cruets or empty ampullae, or at least one. And they commonly hold that the handing over of each instrument is essential. One or the other which has been omitted or doubtfully placed will have to be supplied absolutely or under condition, with nothing else repeated.

— To the subdeacon: a) there is handed an empty chalice with an empty paten placed over it. Neither the handing over of cruets nor the imposition of vestments is essential; indeed these rites do not seem necessarily to have to be supplied if they have been passed over. That the chalice and paten are handed over empty or with wine and host, this matters nothing for validity; but that they are handed over unconsecrated gives place to a certain controversy. Some object that by the handing over of a non-sacred thing sacred power is not signified (so St. Alph., VI, 747); others answer that the signification is already had from the material form itself. And this seems more probable to us. Nor is that consecration, concerning which the Pontifical is silent, more necessary for the symbolic rite than it is necessary that the keys of the church itself be handed to the porter; b) the book of Epistles or Missal is also handed over. Several think that this also is now essential.

Therefore if one or the other handing over has been omitted, let it be supplied absolutely or under condition, according as the omission was certain or only doubtful. If neither was done, the ordination itself will have to be repeated absolutely or conditionally.

But all these handings over are received by those to be ordained by touch of the right hand, which they will to be physical, so that if physical contact has been lacking, the handing over is to be supplied at least conditionally.

The step which, although not necessary, expresses the solemn vow of chastity can usefully be made by all who are not bound by such a vow. Yet by those who are held by a perpetual vow, even a simple one, it is customarily omitted.

— A deacon, according to the more probable opinion, is ordained by imposition of the hand with the eucharistic prayer or Preface, into which, not from the beginning, these words are inserted: "Receive the Holy Spirit for strength and for resisting the devil and his temptations: in the name of the Lord."

Yet for the sake of security there cannot be omitted the physical handing over of the book of Gospels or Missal, with the formula: "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. Amen."

Unless there were that power of the Church of more defining the matter and form of sacraments instituted by Christ, it would have to be held as established that by this hand-imposition alone with the joined Preface the essential ordination is completed. And the same would have to be said concerning the presbyterate. For it is established, and recently His Eminence Cardinal Van Rossum has luminously demonstrated by his learned work, that through many centuries there was no handing over of instruments in the Latin Church, just as neither is any had now in the Greek Church. Yet the Church seems able to determine the essential rite. Now the opinion of St. Thomas and of the scholastics, Eugene IV in the decree for the Armenians, and the Roman Pontifical itself, in which, even after the Preface has been recited, those to whom the vestments are to be imposed and the book of the Gospel handed over are called those to be ordained, not yet ordained, prove that in the Latin Church a common persuasion concerning the necessity of that handing over prevailed. This common persuasion at least probably demonstrates, from custom itself, the will of the Church of having that handing over as essential. Therefore we do not doubt concerning the power of the Supreme Pontiff to suppress that necessity; but until he has done this, the handing over of instruments in the ordination of deacon and priest cannot safely be omitted.

Therefore practically: 1. if the imposition of the hand has been passed over, it alone is to be supplied with its words (c. 3, De Sacramentis non iterandis, I, 16). These words seem to be the whole Preface, rather than the brief formula: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (cf. Gasparri, De sacra ordinatione, II, 1050); 2. if the handing over of the book of Gospels with the relevant form has been omitted, this also will have to be supplied; 3. if both have been omitted, the whole ordination will have to be restored. Yet observe that the words "Receive the Holy Spirit" seem less essential than the rest of the Preface. Yet if they have been passed over, the matter cannot be neglected without authority of the Holy See.

The other prayers and the imposition of vestments are not at all essential; indeed, if perhaps passed over, they do not even seem to have to be supplied.

— In the ordination of a priest⁽¹⁾, we observe a threefold imposition of hands and the handing over of instruments. First, the bishop in silence imposes both hands upon the head of the one to be ordained, which, after him, other priests perform, if any are present; for this is not essential. This having been done, another succeeds, unless you prefer to say that the first is continued in another way. That is, the bishop and the priests present extend their right hands over those to be ordained, while the bishop says: "Let us pray," etc. This prayer, which is rather an invitation to praying, is followed both by a true prayer directed to God, "Hear us," and by the Preface or eucharistic prayer. In this, besides other things, these words are said: "Grant, we beseech You, almighty Father, to these Your servants the dignity of the presbyterate; renew in their inward parts the spirit of holiness, that they may obtain from You, O God, the office of second merit." The third imposition of hands is made at the end of Mass, before the Postcommunion, by which the bishop imposes both hands upon the head of each, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

⁽¹⁾ Cf. ancient documents, for example in Appendix V, at the end of the work De sacra ordinatione, C. Gasparri.

In the Greek Church, ordination consists in the imposition of hands alone under the due form. But in the Latin Church, somewhat after the second imposition of hands, the vestments are put on, the hands are anointed; and there is handed to each one the chalice with wine, over which is placed the paten with a host, and the bishop says: "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." And in the Pontifical, not before, but already then they are called ordained.

Concerning the essential matter and form of this ordination, it seems that it must be said thus. Theoretically, that rite is to be held as essential by which the bishop, in the manner which the Church has determined, clearly signifies the communication of priestly power.

For a long time, this rite was, after the exhortation to pray, the extension of the hand over the head of the one to be ordained with a prayer in which grace was implored over him whom the Church was dedicating with the honor of the presbyterate (cf. Duchesne, Origines, 5, pp. 390, 391). Through the first nine centuries, the imposition of hands alone was used. Then the scholastics, with St. Thomas, considered the blessing, the imposition of hands, through which they recognized that the fullness of grace was given, and the anointing of hands, as a preparation for the formal conferral of power, which they thought was made through the handing over of the chalice with the words: "Receive the power of offering sacrifice to God," etc., in which giving of the chalice the character would be imprinted (cf. St. Th., in IV Sent., d. 24, q. 2, art. 3, c.). To this doctrine the Pontifical seems to have been accommodated. Hence in the decree for the Armenians, which decree is a practical instruction, yet of greatest authority, it is said: "the presbyterate is handed down through the presentation of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread... The form of the priesthood is such: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Benedict XIV, De syn., l. 8, c. 10, n. 8, judged that this must be interpreted concerning an integrating and accessory form. Today authors incline more and more toward these parts, so that theoretically they hold the imposition of hands alone with the prayer Exaudi nos quaesumus and the following Preface as essential. Yet in the Preface itself there are several things which cannot be held as essential, since several are related historically. But the last part of the Preface, from the words "Grant, we beseech You, almighty Father," is clearly principal. The Holy See has abstained from a doctrinal definition. Practically, however, it responds as if both the imposition of hands and the extension of the hand with the following prayer, and also the handing over of the chalice with its form, were essential, and the power of absolving were given through the last imposition of hands with the words Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. Hence there are especially two opposed opinions. The first holds that every priestly power is communicated together from the beginning, and that afterward it is more clearly explained what has been conferred; the other, on the contrary, holds that from the beginning the conferral of power is prepared, which is made formally either together, in the handing over of the chalice with the words joined to it, or through two successive parts, in the handing over of the chalice, and in the last imposition of hands under the words then to be pronounced.

Theologians agree, however, that the safer parts must be followed, and that nothing is safe except what the Holy See has declared to be such.

— What things in the imposition of hands itself and in the handing over of the chalice must practically be held as essential is to be defined more precisely.

1. Concerning the imposition of hands:

a) it is established that priests have been made before the third imposition of hands, for they concelebrate with the bishop. Some doubt only is had concerning the necessity of the third imposition for giving the power of absolving. Therefore the ordained man who has not received this will be able safely to celebrate Masses, but not sacramentally to absolve, before this ceremony has been supplied by a bishop in another sacrifice; and indeed absolutely, if it certainly was omitted, but conditionally, if it probably, even with slight probability, was neglected or badly performed;

b) by extending the hand, the Ordaining minister continues the imposition of hands previously made in silence. So Benedict XIV, De syn., l. 8, c. 10, n. 4, and after him authors. Therefore for a long time the first imposition of hands was considered as an integrating but non-essential part, which it was enough to supply afterward.

This, by the obvious sense of the words, Gregory IX also teaches, in c. 3, De sacramentis non iterandis (I, 16). Yet there are those who remain in doubt whether there is question there of the first or of the third imposition of hands. Yet departing from that usage of merely supplying the first imposition of hands, which Gasparri, De ord., II, 1080, and Palm., V, n. 910, for example, attest, on July 4, 1900, the Holy Office judged that the whole ordination must be repeated under condition, because the first imposition of hands had been made without physical contact.

It was also said that either imposition of hands suffices for validity. And Gasparri, II, 1081, reports a response of the Holy Office, September 16, 1877, by which it had declared that acquiescence should be made, that is, nothing should be supplied, after an ordination in which only the second imposition had been passed over. But more recently, July 19, 1899, the Holy Office ordered that the ordination be repeated entirely under condition, in which the first imposition of hands had been made, because it was not established "at least for a moment, concerning the extension of hands over those to be ordained" (Anal. eccl., VII, 340).

Physical contact, however, is necessary in the first and third imposition. Yet mediate contact suffices. Thus, January 22, 1890, the Holy Office responded that physical contact had not been lacking in an ordination in which the bishop, in the first imposition, had physically touched the skullcap of the one to be ordained and not the head (An. eccl., V, 144).

But what if the first imposition of hands is supplied not after the ceremonies of ordination have been completed, but in the ordination itself, even after the Preface or handing over of instruments but before the Canon of the Mass, without any repetition of words? We think this suffices for validity. For this imposition is to be made without a form of words; but the words pronounced before are joined with the extension of the hand, and, being made during the ordination, it is morally united with the whole rite. So also Palmieri, V, 892, would say. Yet an authentic declaration is desired.

C. Gasparri, II, 1982, thinks that it is enough that, if it has been omitted, the first imposition of hands be repeated with the subsequent extension of hands and with the words passed over, if the invitation Oremus or the prayer Exaudi nos had been omitted. We think that the whole ordination must be repeated under condition, unless the error is corrected before the Canon.

There seems to be no reason why we should call the exhortation to pray, "Let us pray, dearest brethren," by which the right hands are extended over those to be ordained, essential. But the form consists in the following prayer and Preface. Nevertheless, if the words "Let us pray," etc., have been omitted, the Holy See will have to be approached. The form of the third imposition is certainly contained in the words: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive," etc.

But whether the words have been omitted, or have been substantially corrupted, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, May 27, 1840, prescribed only the conditional supplying of the third imposition and form, because the bishop had said: "Whose sins you shall forgive are retained" (Gasparri, II, 1085).

2. Concerning the handing over of instruments:

a) if the chalice is handed over empty of wine, or the paten without a host, the whole ordination must be repeated under condition (cf. Holy Office, July 6, 1898; January 11, 1899, An. eccl., VI, 338; VII, 145). But that the mixture of water has been omitted does not affect the essence, since that mixture is not necessary for the consecration of the wine itself. Indeed Lehmk., II, 742, reports that it was answered that one could safely acquiesce, when certainly a greater quantity of water had been poured into the wine. But because the chalice with wine and the paten with host constitute one certain thing, for validity it suffices that the candidate has touched either. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 3, 1661, pacified a priest who had not touched the chalice (Decr. auth., n. 1921); thus the Holy Office, June 22, 1892, ordered that an ordinand acquiesce who certainly had touched the host, but positively doubted about the touch of the paten (An. eccl., V, 144); and on March 17, 1897 another who had touched the paten and host but not the chalice (An. eccl., V, 203). But if he has touched only the paten and not the host and chalice with wine, or only the host but not the paten and chalice with wine, it will be safer to ask the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or the Holy Office, or to repeat the entire ordination under condition (Gasparri, II, 1085).

It is also established that it is enough that the contact be morally joined with the form.

Therefore the Holy Office, March 17, 1897, willed that a priest be secure who had touched the instruments before the bishop pronounced the words, but not during those words (An. eccl., V, 144).

— Neither the anointing of the hands nor the handing over of vestments is essential. Yet the anointing will have to be supplied afterward, with the other ceremonies omitted. Cf. c. un., De Sacra unctione (I, 15).

It is not established that the imposition of vestments must be supplied.

Much less is it established that concelebration must be supplied, although some hold this. But it is established that other things are not to be supplied (cf. Gasparri, II, n. 1086; Lehmk., II, 743; Palm., V, 910). Gasparri, loc. cit., would rather wish that the promise of obedience be supplied.

Of all religious who are not exempt, the bishop truly is the High Priest. Nor do they have a prelate properly so called except exempt clerical religious. Therefore the promise of obedience at the end of ordination seems to have to be made by all others to the Ordinary Bishop.

Concerning concelebration, it was treated above, nn. 287 and 318 (cf. also Benedict XIV, De sacrificio missae, III, 16, n. 7).

— Episcopal consecration is essentially contained in the imposition of hands with the Preface or eucharistic prayer, or with the relative words: "Receive the Holy Spirit." The imposition of the open book of the Gospels over the neck and shoulders of the one to be consecrated, which is done in silence from the beginning of the sacred rite, is certainly not of divine institution, and seems to be merely a sacramental. Yet we do not yet have an authentic response, so that safely we could have this as accidental (cf. Gasparri, II, 1115). The other things are not essential. But from c. un., De sacra unctione (I, 15), Innocent III defined that an omitted anointing, whether of the head or of the hands, is to be supplied by a bishop, with two bishops assisting, without any other repetition of the consecration.

— General norms concerning correcting or supplying defects.

1. In ordinations whose special rite is certainly of ecclesiastical institution, or, as others say, which certainly are not sacraments, a rite probably valid becomes certainly valid, since the Church can and is accustomed to supply defects of this kind, or at least practically to permit that, with the inferior grade omitted, one ascend to a higher one. Yet authors circumscribe this rule to the four minor orders, since some, who nevertheless remove the reason of sacrament from minor orders, have wished to place the subdiaconate among the sacraments. Nor is this rule to be followed practically when a truly grave reason suggests nullity.

2. It is also established, in every ordination, that a rite which is certainly of ecclesiastical institution does not pertain to the essence beyond the will of the Church or of the supreme Pastor (Lehmk., II, 743). Therefore the Church could be content with probable observation of that rite. Yet hitherto it has by no means done this. Therefore it has not rarely commanded conditional repetition of ordination on account of a probable defect of such a rite. Thus, with this distinction omitted, it must be said as follows:

3. a) a defect which certainly has been committed in a rite certainly essential obliges to the whole ordination being repeated absolutely;

b) but an ordination which probably, by probability of fact or of law, is affected by a substantial defect is to be repeated under condition.

If, however, the omitted rite already supposes certain power conferred through another rite, as is the handing over of the book of Gospels in the ordination of a deacon, or the third imposition of hands in the ordination of a priest, then it is enough to supply what was omitted.

The same suffices if the omitted rite can be judged to be merely an integrating part of the rite which was used. And they were bringing forward as an example the first imposition of hands in the ordination of a priest (cf. Palm., V, 910). But this has now come into controversy, as we have seen.

And when it is a question of the power of an inferior grade which is certainly contained in the superior, the obligation of receiving the order again conditionally will not be present without a truly grave reason, at least in him who has received the superior order;

c) the rite itself certainly accidental, if it has been passed over in a grave matter, as is the anointing of the hands of a priest, is to be supplied, but without the ordination being repeated. If in a light matter, nothing is to be done.

It is also clear that he sins gravely who knowingly neglects a notable ceremony.

4. It is not required that the same bishop supply who committed the defect, since, as is clear in Extreme Unction, partial matters and forms of one sacrament can of themselves be administered by several.

5. When an essential rite is to be supplied absolutely, the time of ordination is of itself to be awaited. But the Sacred Congregation will dispense so that the ordination be repeated secretly and at another time.

But if, on account of doubt, an Order is repeated under condition, probably it can be repeated on any day and by any bishop; and on the same day both major and minor orders can be conferred together, with only those solemnities used which are certainly or probably necessary for validity (St. Alph., VI, 759).

— I. Ordination designates the creation of sacred ministers.

Order, actively, is the same as ordination; passively, it designates the conferred power; collectively, the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself.

The sacrament of Order is the sacrament by which, through a sacred rite used by a competent minister, spiritual power is conferred together with grace for worthily undertaking sacred ministries.

This sacrament is a potential whole: the parts which are had together by him who possesses the fullness of order can be conferred separately. Yet it is doubted whether the episcopate can be validly conferred without formal presbyterate. And ordination by leap is so prohibited that the omitted formal orders must always be supplied.

The three major and sacred orders: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate are sacraments. Are the minor orders and subdiaconate sacraments? The matter is controverted and rather denied.

First tonsure is mere initiation into the clerical state, in the conferral of which, however, the norms concerning conferring sacraments are to be observed.

II. Essential rites. A. Generalities. This can be said theoretically concerning all orders: that rite is to be held as essential by which the competent minister, in the manner which the Church has determined, clearly communicates spiritual power. Practically, no imposition of vestments pertains to the essential rite. Concerning the four minor orders at least they admit that a probably valid rite becomes certainly valid, because the Church can and is accustomed to supply defects of this kind, or practically permits that, with the inferior grade omitted, one ascend to the superior, if the ordination objectively was null.

B. Concerning individual orders. 1. First tonsure. The competent prelate cuts the extremity of the hairs, and he who is tonsured says: "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my chalice; You are He who will restore my inheritance to me." If hairs are altogether lacking, recourse will have to be made to the Holy See.

2. Minor ordinations and the subdiaconate. A certain handing over is had as proximate matter and the pronouncement of words as form. Note that the handing over of an empty cruet is essential to the acolythate, but the handing over of full cruets is not essential to the subdiaconate. Physical touch is always required for security.

3. The deacon is more probably ordained by the imposition of the right hand with the eucharistic prayer or Preface, into which the formula taken more broadly is inserted: "Receive the Holy Spirit for strength," etc. For the sake of security, the handing over of the book of Gospels or Missal, with the formula "Receive," etc., cannot be omitted and is to be supplied.

4. In the presbyterate the essential rite is more probably contained in the second imposition or extension of the hand, which continues the first imposition of hands, made in silence, with the eucharistic prayer. The third imposition of the hand with its form, "Receive the Holy Spirit," etc., is certainly not essential. Practically, however, neither the first nor the second can be omitted. If the third has been lacking, it must be supplied before the priest hears confessions. Besides this, the handing over of the full chalice with host, and with the formula, cannot be omitted in the Latin Church without necessity of repeating the ordination under condition.

III. Rules for supplying defects. 1. A defect certainly committed in an essential rite obliges to the whole ordination being repeated.

2. On account of a probably substantial defect, the whole order is repeated under condition.

3. Yet if the omitted rite already supposes certain power conferred through another rite, as the handing over of the book of Gospels to the deacon or the third imposition of hands in priestly ordination, it is enough to supply what was omitted.

4. The rite itself certainly accidental in a grave matter, as the anointing of the hands of a priest, is supplied without the ordination being repeated.

5. It is not required that the same one supply who committed the defect. Conditional repetition can probably be made on any day and by any bishop; this the Sacred Congregation easily permits also where the essential rite is to be supplied absolutely.

We divide this chapter into three articles: 1. on the notion and distinction of Order; 2. on the effects of Order; 3. on the matter and form 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.

¹ Suppl., q. 34, a. 2.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

First we shall treat of the effects of this sacrament in general, and afterward of the effects and offices conferred by the individual orders.

588. The sacrament of Order produces four effects, of which three regard the one ordained himself and the fourth reaches the Church.

1. Order produces an increase of sanctifying grace and sacramental grace. For Order is a sacrament of the living and causes peculiar graces, as does every other sacrament.

2. Order imprints an indelible character, and therefore no order can be repeated.¹⁵

3. Order confers the spiritual power of exercising the functions of the respective order received. This power indeed has a greater or lesser connection with the Eucharist.

4. Order causes the permanence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which cannot subsist without this sacrament. Therefore this sacrament especially looks to the utility and beauty of the Church.

¹⁵ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 4, De sacr. ord. (Denz., n. 964).

589. 1. On the minor orders. The minor orders in the Latin Church are four, as was said above:

a) The order of porter hands on the power, by reason of office, of opening and closing the doors of the church, of admitting the worthy and excluding the unworthy. Of how great importance this order was in the first centuries of the Church, when Christians were afflicted by such dreadful persecutions, is evident from ecclesiastical history.

b) The lectorate hands on the power, by reason of office, of reading the psalms and lessons in the pulpit of the church, of catechizing or instructing the people in the rudiments of the faith, and of blessing bread and new fruits.

c) The order of exorcist hands on the special power of expelling demons from the possessed, lest they impede them from Communion. According to the discipline in force, this power indeed cannot be exercised (at least publicly) unless there is the prior and express permission of the Ordinary.¹⁶

d) The order of acolyte hands on the power, by reason of office, of serving the subdeacon at solemn Mass, of carrying the cruets to the altar, and of kindling the lights upon it. The acolyte is sometimes called a candle-bearer.

According to modern discipline, the functions of the four minor orders (with the exception of exorcism) are often exercised by laymen.

¹⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 1151.

590. 2. On the major orders. The major orders in the Latin Church are three, as was said:

a) The subdiaconate confers the power of preparing the matter to be consecrated in the sacred vessels, of serving the deacon at solemn Mass, of chanting the Epistle, and of washing corporals, purificators, and palls.

b) The diaconate confers the power of immediately assisting the priest at solemn Mass, of chanting the Gospel, and (by commission of the Ordinary or parish priest) of preaching.¹⁷ Under what conditions a deacon may solemnly baptize and distribute Holy Communion was said above under nn. 121 and 217.

c) The priesthood confers the power of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ, of remitting sins, of feeding subjects by work and doctrine, and of administering the remaining sacraments which do not necessarily require the episcopal character.

d) The episcopate (although perhaps it is nothing other than the complement of the order of priesthood¹⁸), nevertheless, just as it is a special degree of the hierarchy, so also does it confer special powers, namely, of administering the sacraments of Confirmation and Order, of confecting several sacramentals (such as consecrations and blessings), and of governing the people legitimately entrusted to him.

¹⁷ Ibid., c. 1342, § 1.

¹⁸ Cf. above, n. 587.

591. Scholion. On the effects of the clerical tonsure. Although the first clerical tonsure is not itself an order, as was said, nevertheless it disposes one for receiving orders and produces several effects, namely:

a) it transfers one into the clerical state and incardinates him in a diocese;¹⁹

b) it confers the so-called clerical privileges, namely, of canon, forum, and immunity;²⁰

c) it confers aptitude for receiving orders, exercising jurisdiction, and receiving ecclesiastical benefices and pensions.²¹

¹⁹ Code of Canon Law, cc. 108 and 111, § 2.

²⁰ Cf. our Man. iur. can., q. 63.

²¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 118.

Preliminary note. We treat this matter, which pertains rather to Dogmatic Theology, very briefly; nevertheless, we note that in practice the safer part is to be followed in the many controversies which are agitated concerning the matter and form of Order; and this is certain if a sacred order is in question.

592. The matter and form of the minor orders.

The remote matter of the minor orders is the instruments proper to the individual orders.

The proximate matter of the minor orders is the handing over of these instruments.

The form of the minor orders is the words of the bishop pronounced in the handing over of the instruments.

1. In the order of porter, the proximate matter is the handing over of the keys of the church, which the individual ordinands must touch with the right hand while the pontiff pronounces the words: "Act in such a manner as though about to render an account to God for those things which are unlocked by these keys."

Concerning the ordination of a porter, the following Roman decisions are to be noted: a) It is lawful to use any key whatsoever.²² Nevertheless, the Sacred Congregation of Rites on June 20, 1899, responded to the doubt: "For the keys which are to be handed over to porters in their ordination, does it suffice that only one be handed over? - Let the Roman Pontifical be observed in practice."²³ Now, the Pontifical prescribes that two keys of the church be handed over. b) It is not necessary for the porter to pull the rope for ringing the bells of the church, but it suffices that he shake the altar bells at the doors of the church.²⁴

2. In the lectorate, the proximate matter is the handing over of the book of lessons, which the individual ordinands must touch with the right hand while the pontiff says: "Receive and be relaters of the word of God, to have, if you faithfully and profitably fulfill your office, a part with those who have well administered the word of God from the beginning."

The book to be handed over can be a Missal, a Breviary, or a volume of Sacred Scripture.²⁵

3. In the order of exorcist, the proximate matter is the handing over of the book of exorcisms, which the individual ordinands must touch with the right hand, the pontiff saying: "Receive and commit to memory, and have the power of imposing hands upon the possessed, whether baptized or catechumens."

The Ritual, the Pontifical, or the Missal can be presented as the book of exorcisms.

4. In the order of acolyte, the proximate matter is constituted by a twofold handing over, namely: 1. of a candlestick with an extinguished candle, which (that is, both the candlestick and the candle) the individual ordinands must touch with the right hand, the pontiff saying: "Receive the candlestick with the candle, and know that you are appointed to kindle the lights of the church, in the name of the Lord. R. Amen"; 2. of an empty cruet, which the ordinands must similarly touch with the right hand while the pontiff says: "Receive the cruet for supplying wine and water for the Eucharist of the Blood of Christ, in the name of the Lord. R. Amen." The response "Amen" is to be made by the ordinand (and not by the bystanders).²⁶

²² Thus the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, September 27, 1843 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 984). Nevertheless, a key of a sacred place appears to be necessary, because the form of this order applied to a key of a profane place could be very irreligious.

²³ Decr. auth., n. 4035 ad 5.

²⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 27, 1873 (Decr. auth., n. 3315 ad 3).

²⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 27, 1873 (ibid. ad 5).

²⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, November 12, 1831 (Decr. auth., n. 2682 ad 6).

593. The matter and form of the major orders.

In the subdiaconate, the proximate matter is constituted by a twofold handing over, namely: 1. of an empty chalice with an empty paten placed upon it, which the individual ordinands must touch with the right hand while the pontiff says: "See what ministry is handed over to you; therefore I admonish you so to conduct yourselves that you may be able to please God"; 2. of the book of Epistles (the Missal or the Bible), which the individual ordinands similarly touch with the right hand, the pontiff saying: "Receive the book of Epistles, and have the power of reading them in the holy Church of God, both for the living and for the dead; in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." R. Amen.²⁷

In the diaconate, the proximate matter is likewise twofold, namely: 1. the imposition of the bishop's hand, during which the pontiff says: "Receive the Holy Spirit for strength and for resisting the devil and his temptations: in the name of the Lord"; 2. the handing over of the book of the Gospels (the Missal or the Bible), which the individual ordinands must touch with the right hand, the pontiff saying: "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." R. Amen.

²⁷ It is certain among all that neither the handing over of the cruets (made by the archdeacon) nor the putting on of the vestments is an essential rite in the subdiaconate.

594. In the priesthood, theologians have gone into diverse opinions concerning what is the essential proximate matter and essential form. For in the rite of ordination, besides the twofold imposition of hands, there are diverse ceremonies of great importance.

The first imposition of hands takes place at the beginning of the ordination and consists in the imposition of the hands of the bishop and of the priests standing by upon the head of the ordinand, together with the extension of the right hand by the bishop and the priests made immediately afterward over all the ordinands, with the prayer of the bishop. The second imposition of hands takes place after Communion by the bishop saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose ..." The other ceremonies are the handing over of the chasuble, the anointing of the hands, and the presentation of the chalice with wine and water and of the paten with the host.²⁸

The opinion now far more common is: The matter of the order consists in the first imposition of hands.²⁹

This opinion is favored by: 1. Sacred Scripture, which speaks only of the imposition of hands as the matter of ordination (1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6). 2. Tradition, which bears witness to the imposition of hands. All the remaining ceremonies, however, were introduced by the authority of the Church for greater solemnity. Therefore they cannot be the essential matter of the sacrament. For it is incredible that the Church can change the substance of the sacraments. 3. The Council of Trent. For it never speaks of the presentation of the instruments, but it does speak of the imposition of hands (Sess. 14, De extr. unct., c. 3). 4. The usage of the Greeks, according to which priests were always ordained by the imposition of hands alone. There was never any doubt concerning the validity of those ordinations. But the substance of the sacrament of Order ought to be the same among the Greeks as among the Latins.

The other opinions are that the matter of ordination is:

1. the presentation of the instruments alone (the chalice and paten).

Because of the authority of the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians³⁰ and because of the number of theologians of great name defending this opinion,³¹ in practice the presentation of the instruments also ought to be made, besides the imposition of hands, for the sake of security. Therefore the Holy Office several times decreed that the whole ordination in which something was lacking in the handing over of the instruments, for example, the host upon the paten or wine in the chalice, should be repeated conditionally. Cf. Holy Office, July 6, 1898; January 11, 1899; January 17, 1900.

2. the first imposition of hands together with the presentation of the instruments (Billot, Tanquerey).³²

3. either the imposition of hands alone or the presentation of the instruments alone (Diana, Esparza, Clericatus).

4. the first and second imposition of hands and the presentation of the instruments (Lugo, Gotti, Amort).

5. the presentation of the instruments and the second imposition of hands.

This cannot be said, because: a) those ordained certainly have already received the sacrament of Order before the consecration of the Mass, which they perform with the ordaining bishop; b) the second imposition of hands does not appear to have been in use before the twelfth century.³³

In the episcopate, the proximate matter is the imposition of the hands of the consecrator, and the form is the prayer which accompanies this imposition. For the rest, certainty is lacking in this matter, since several theologians teach that the episcopate is not an order strictly so called, but only the complement of the priesthood.

²⁸ On this question, see Diekamp-Hoffmann, Theologiae Dogmaticae Manuale IV, § 65, p. 403 ff.

²⁹ Cardinal van Rossum (De essentia sacr. ord., n. 100 ff.) cites more than one hundred authors for this opinion and concludes: "Hardly anyone remains who does not follow this opinion."

³⁰ Denz., n. 791.

³¹ Van Rossum (loc. cit., n. 12) cites approximately 90 authors for this opinion.

³² Cf. ibid., n. 79.

³³ Ibid., n. 54 ff.

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.

It must be spoken: 1. of the notion of Order; 2. of the effects of this Sacrament; 3. of the matter and form by which it is constituted.

1885. I. DEFINITION. Order, generally, is the apt disposition of things among themselves and to some end.

Order, specifically, considered in relation to our scope, is taken in two ways: 1. passively, for a certain grade, or state of men, who by some consecration are deputed to the divine ministry in the Church of Christ; in which respect it is not a Sacrament, but something permanent; 2. actively, for the sacred rite itself through which a man is enrolled into this sort of state and dignity of the divine ministry: in which sense it is something transitory, and is commonly defined: "A certain seal of the Church, by which spiritual power is handed over to the Ordained, in order to the Eucharist...."¹ So defined, Order comprehends also the lower grades or minor Orders, which, more probably, are not instituted by Christ the Lord, but only by the Church.

But more exactly Order, insofar as instituted by Christ the Lord, can be defined: "A Sacrament of the New Law, by which there is handed over the power of consecrating, offering, and ministering the Body and Blood of Christ, and also of remitting sins, or of serving the priest from office."

From Trent, sess. 13, cap. 1 and 2.

1886. II. DISTINCTION OF ORDERS. It is of faith that there are MANY Orders in the Church, as Trent defines, sess. 23, can. 2: "If anyone shall say that, besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other Orders, both major and minor, through which, as through certain grades, one tends to the priesthood: let him be anathema."

SEVEN ORDERS are counted in the Latin Church, namely: four minor ones: Ostiariate, Lectorate, Exorcistate, and Acolythate; three major ones: Subdiaconate, Diaconate, Priesthood or Presbyterate. The three latter are also called sacred, both because they immediately concur in confecting or ministering the Eucharist, and chiefly because they have annexed the obligation of perpetual chastity, by which the Ordained are consecrated to God.²

The distinction of Orders, according to D. Thomas,³ is taken according to relation to the EUCHARIST, insofar as it is confected, distributed, and received. - Hence, either the matter is of consecrating the Eucharist, and for this the Priesthood is given; or of distributing it, and in this the Deacon cooperates with the priest; or in preparing the sacred vessels, that the matter may be received in them, which pertains to the Subdeacon; or of presenting the matter itself, and this pertains to the Acolyte. - But as regards the recipients, these ought to be clean: therefore the unclean are to be kept away. Of these there is a THREEFOLD genus: some are those who do not wish to receive the Faith, as Infidels, to whom the church is to be closed, and this pertains to the Doorkeepers; others, who indeed have received the faith, but are not yet sufficiently instructed, such as Catechumens, and to these Lectors are given; others, who indeed sufficiently abound in doctrine, but are detained by the demon, as Energumens, and to these Exorcists are deputed.

Tonsure and Episcopate do not hinder the sevenfold number of Orders. - For Tonsure is not an Order, but a disposition to Orders, as is clear from Trent, sess. 23, cap. 2. But Episcopate is the complement of Presbyterate, since Priesthood is subdivided into Presbyterate and Episcopate.⁴

1887. III. TRUTH OF THE SACRAMENT. Order, or sacred Ordination, is a true and properly so-called SACRAMENT of the New Law. For it has the three things which constitute a Sacrament, namely: 1. a sensible sign through the imposition of hands with the words joined to it, from Acts of the Apostles, c. 6, 6: "And praying, they imposed hands upon them"; 2. the promise of grace, from 1 Tim. 4, 14: "Do not neglect the grace... which was given to you with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery"; 3. the institution of Christ, from Eph. 4, 11: "He gave some... Apostles... and others pastors and doctors... unto the work of ministry"; and from Luke 22, 19: "Do this in commemoration of me": by which words the priesthood was openly instituted. It is confirmed from Trent, sess. 23, can. 3: "If anyone shall say that Order or sacred Ordination is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord: let him be anathema."⁵

1888. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the individual seven Orders are Sacraments?

Resp. 1. It is of faith that the PRESBYTERATE is a Sacrament, because at least concerning it those things are verified which we have said of Order in general, and those words of Trent (sess. 23, can. 4): "If anyone shall say that through sacred Ordination the Holy Spirit is not given, and therefore that the Bishops say in vain: Receive the Holy Spirit, or that through it a character is not imprinted: let him be anathema."

Resp. 2. It is certain, although not of faith, that the DIACONATE is a Sacrament; because in it are found the essentials required for a Sacrament, namely a certain matter, which is the imposition of hands, and a form with the promise of grace, in these words: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. - It is established besides from Trent, sess. 23, can. 6: "If anyone shall say that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of Bishops, Presbyters, and ministers (who are at least deacons): let him be anathema."

Resp. 3. "That the other Orders, namely the SUBDIACONATE and the FOUR MINOR ORDERS, are still Sacraments, is sufficiently probable, from D. Thomas, since to each Order a matter and form seem to have been assigned.... Nevertheless, it is more probable that they are not Sacraments; because in them matter is lacking, namely the imposition of hands, which (as we shall soon say) is more probably the sole matter of Order; and the form is also lacking which expresses the production of grace, since in the conferral of the aforesaid Orders no mention is made of grace, but only of the power which is handed over."⁶ Add to these things that in the Greek Church the minor Orders are not found, except the Lectorate. - And hence it follows that those who are promoted to Orders lower than the diaconate with consciousness of mortal sin cannot be condemned of certain sacrilege. Make an exception as regards the Eucharist, which they receive in the Ordination itself.

Q. 2. Whether the EPISCOPATE is a Sacrament distinct from the Presbyterate?

Resp. 1. It is of faith that the Episcopate was instituted by Christ the Lord, and that through it Bishops are made, by divine right, superiors to presbyters: as is established from Trent, sess. 23, can. 6 and 7. - 2. Yet it is not of faith that it is a Sacrament distinct from the Presbyterate; for D. Thomas and not a few others deny this, who teach that the Episcopate is an extension or complement of the presbyterate: led, namely, by this reason, that through the Episcopate no broader and more sublime power of consecrating and offering is conferred. Hence, they say, it is not required that a new character be imprinted, but it is sufficient that the character of priesthood be perfected and extended to other offices: almost in the way in which, in the Ordination of a presbyter, the sacerdotal power through the final imposition of hands is extended to the power of remitting and retaining sins. But very more probably and most commonly, others teach with Bellarmine that the Episcopate is a Sacrament distinct from the Presbyterate, and that in it a special character is imprinted; both because it is conferred through the imposition of hands and through the form: Receive the Holy Spirit; and especially because through it a special power is handed over, not only as regards various sacred functions, but also as regards the Eucharist itself, namely the power of constituting the ministers of this Sacrament.⁷

Q. 3. Whether and how the various Orders constitute only ONE SACRAMENT?

Resp. "They constitute only one Sacrament from unity of end, since the individual Orders are ordered to confecting the one Sacrifice of the Mass; and all (in the opinion of St. Thomas) are supposed to have been instituted by Christ in those words: 'Do this in commemoration of me.' For in the Order of Priesthood the others are either contained eminently, as are the inferior Orders, or consequently with respect to the Episcopate."⁸

We shall treat: 1. of the effects of this Sacrament, in general; 2. of the power and offices of the individual Orders, in particular.

1889. I. The effects of Order, AS REGARDS THE ORDAINED HIMSELF, are the following three:⁹

1. The conferral of GRACE, both habitual and sacramental, according to what was said concerning the Sacraments in general (n. 1394-1396). - This grace, whose excellence is to be judged from the sublimity of the ministry,¹⁰ is imparted only to those who worthily receive the Sacrament.

2. The imprinting of an indelible CHARACTER, on account of which no Order can be repeated. It is established from Trent (sess. 23, can. 4). All who validly receive the Sacrament are marked with this character.

3. The conferral of the POWER of exercising the functions of the Order which is received. - This power is concerned with spiritual things, and first of all with the real body of Christ, or with the Most Holy Eucharist, with some preeminence; and it is conferred on all who validly receive the Sacrament; indeed also on those who are promoted only to the Subdiaconate or to minor Orders, although, more probably, they do not receive a character. Nor are helps of grace lacking to these, granted by reason of the prayers of the Church.

1890. II. The effect of Order, AS REGARDS THE CHURCH, is the permanence in it of the divinely instituted hierarchy. - For thus Trent speaks (sess. 23, can. 6): "If anyone shall say that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of Bishops, presbyters, and ministers: let him be anathema." From these words it is openly gathered that the Sacrament of Order (as the Roman Catechism notes) chiefly regards the utility of the Church and its beauty.¹

What, you will ask, is the DIFFERENCE between the power of ORDER and the power of JURISDICTION?

Resp. A threefold difference chiefly can be assigned. - The FIRST arises from the manner in which each power is ACQUIRED; for the power of Order is conferred through sacred Ordination; but the power of jurisdiction is transmitted through mission, which is defined: "The legitimate assignment of subjects, or legitimate deputation for exercising a spiritual office." - The SECOND is had from the OBJECT or END of each power: Order, or ministry, sanctifies men through rites; but the power of jurisdiction rules and directs them through magisterium and discipline. - The THIRD difference is taken from the manner in which each power INHERES IN THE SUBJECT: the power of Order inheres immutably; hence Bishops and Priests always and everywhere validly do those things which are duly performed by the force of Order alone; but jurisdiction, since it is conferred from the mission of the Church, can be limited or entirely taken away, and therefore acts of jurisdiction can be made null by a Superior. - Add that one power is able to stand without the other, as is clear in a Bishop instituted, who, although not yet consecrated, obtains jurisdiction over his diocese; while a titular Bishop has the power of Order without jurisdiction, at least proper jurisdiction.²

1891. I. The Order of EPISCOPATE confers on a presbyter the power of confirming, ordaining, judging concerning the Faith, and consecrating things pertaining to divine worship.

The OFFICES of a Bishop annexed to the power of Order are the following: Administration of Order and Confirmation; likewise consecration of altars and churches, of oil of the sick, of catechumens and chrism, of chalices and patens, of Kings and Queens; veilings of Nuns, and the major or solemn blessing. - The offices annexed to the power of jurisdiction will be briefly explained in Part IV (cf. n. 2250 and following).

1892. II. The Order of PRESBYTERATE confers on a deacon the power of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ, of remitting and retaining sins, and of feeding subjects by work and doctrine.³ It is established from Trent, l. c., can. 1. - See in what words the Offices of a presbyter are described in the Pontifical: "It belongs to a Priest to offer, to bless, to preside, to preach, to baptize" (see also n. 2266 and following).

1893. III. The Order of DIACONATE confers on a subdeacon the power of immediately assisting the priest in solemn Mass, by extending to him the paten with the host, and the chalice with wine, and of chanting the Gospel, and of preaching.⁴ The Diaconate pertains to the divinely instituted hierarchy, as is established from what was said at n. 1888; for under the name of ministers at least deacons are comprehended. Their OFFICES, besides those already commemorated, are the following: 1. To baptize solemnly, but only with permission of the pastor and in grave necessity; for a deacon who, without commission, even in a case of necessity, baptizes solemnly, incurs irregularity (cf. n. 1462). - 2. To minister the Eucharist; but neither is this licit to them unless from commission, and in a case of grave necessity: such as if the priest is lacking to the people approaching Communion; otherwise he would be irregular. 3. To carry the pyx or monstrance with the Eucharist. - 4. To wash Corporals, in default of a subdeacon.⁵

1894. IV. The Order of SUBDIACONATE confers on the ordained the power of serving the deacon in solemn Mass and solemnly chanting the Epistle.

The OFFICES of subdeacons, besides the most grave obligation of reciting the divine Office daily and of observing perpetual chastity, can be stated briefly thus: 1. To minister to the deacon at the altar; to prepare wine, bread, linens, etc., for the Sacrifice; to chant the Epistle with the maniple in solemn Mass; to carry the chalice and paten to the altar; to pour water into the chalice; to hold the paten elevated; to carry the peace to the choir. 2. In processions to carry the cross; to wash corporals and purificators: as is prescribed in the Roman Pontifical.⁶

If a subdeacon is lacking for solemn Mass, Superiors can, if necessity exists, permit that a cleric marked only with minor Orders be substituted for him, to chant the Epistle, but without the maniple (thus from the decree of the S. R. C. on July 5, 1698, ad 18).⁷ For if he intended to exercise the proper office of a Subdeacon, he would incur irregularity⁸ (cf. n. 1943).

1895. V. The Order of ACOLYTHATE confers on a cleric the power of carrying cruets to the altar, and of lighting candlesticks and lights on it. (From the ROMAN PONTIFICAL.) - "The OFFICE of an Acolyte is to prepare the ampullae of wine and water for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to extend them to the Subdeacon; to carry candles to the same Sacrifice and to minister to it: whence he is also called candle-bearer."⁹

1896. VI. The Order of EXORCISTATE confers on a cleric the power of expelling demons from the possessed, lest they impede them from Communion (FROM THE ROMAN PONTIFICAL.) The OFFICE of an Exorcist is to impose hands over those vexed by unclean spirits, for adjuring and casting them out; likewise for exorcizing catechumens.¹⁰ "But in order that an exorcist be able to exorcize solemnly, there is required also the conferral of jurisdiction, or permission of the Bishop. Yet this is not by common law, but by a particular precept of Bishops prohibiting exorcism without their permission. - It was said solemnly, since any one of the faithful can privately command demons, that they not harm, nor impede the faithful from sacred actions"¹¹ (cf. n. 622).

1897. VII. The Order of LECTORATE confers on a cleric the power of reading the sacred Scriptures in church (From the ROMAN PONTIFICAL.) - The OFFICE of a Lector is: 1. To chant Lessons and read sacred Scriptures outside Mass (for in Mass it is the office of the Subdeacon); 2. to catechize, or to teach catechumens the rudiments of faith; 3. to bless bread and all new fruits. Thus the ROMAN PONTIFICAL.¹²

1898. VIII. The Order of OSTIARIATE assigns to a cleric the power of opening, closing, and guarding the church. (From the ROMAN PONTIFICAL.) - To his office moreover it belongs to ring bells, to admit the worthy into the church, to expel the unworthy, namely infidels, heretics, and the excommunicated.¹³

1899. IT IS ASKED. What are the effects of TONSURE?

Resp. Tonsure, although it is not an Order, nor confers any power, nevertheless by the institution of the Church obtains manifold effects and precious privileges, namely: 1. The tonsured man is transferred to the clerical state. And hence it is why the hairs themselves are cut off, and indeed in the manner of a crown, by which the royal dignity of those who have been called into the lot of the Lord is splendidly expressed. - 2. Clothed with a surplice, he can intervene in choir for singing the divine Offices. 3. He acquires the privilege of forum, by which he is exempted from the jurisdiction of the lay forum. 4. He also acquires the privilege of the canon, so that those injuriously striking him incur excommunication reserved to the Pope, if the striking is grave; but to the Bishop, if light. 5. The tonsured man becomes capable of an ecclesiastical benefice, provided he has 14 years. 6. He becomes capable of every ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for conferring benefices, bringing censures, and judging spiritual causes. - 7. He becomes proximately apt to receive Orders. For although one not yet tonsured is validly ordained, nevertheless he receives Orders illicitly, and sins gravely against the precept of Trent (sess. 23, cap. 1).¹⁴

Here we shall PRE-NOTE two things: - The first is that the controversy which is moved concerning the form and matter of Order pertains least of all to practice, since in the administration of the Sacraments the safer part must necessarily be chosen. - The other is that the minor Orders and Subdiaconate, which the more probable opinion denies to be Sacraments, on account of a certain analogy with the Sacraments, likewise consist of matter and form. These things having been pre-noted, we say:

1900. I. Of the Orders which more probably are not Sacraments, the REMOTE MATTER is the instruments, but the PROXIMATE matter is the handing over of these instruments; and the FORM is the words which the Bishop pronounces in the handing over of the instruments.¹⁵ Thus commonly. - Hence:

1. A DOORKEEPER is ordained in the handing over of the keys of the church. If several are ordained, it is not required that individuals succeed one another in touching the keys; it suffices that the touch be made by twos or fours jointly, provided it be done with the right hand, at the time when the Bishop pronounces the formula. Thus the S. R. C., March 11, 1820.¹⁶ But if keys of a Church or Oratory are lacking, the Ordainer can use any key whatsoever. (S. Congr. de Prop. F. to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochin-China, March 23, 1844.)¹⁷

2. A LECTOR is ordained by the handing over of the book of prophecies and epistles. If in place of the book of epistles or lectionary a Bible or Breviary were handed over, the Ordination would be not only valid, but also licit; otherwise, if another book were handed over.¹⁸

3. An EXORCIST is ordained by the handing over of the book of exorcisms.

4. An ACOLYTE is ordained by the handing over of empty ampullae, or at least of one, and of a candlestick with an extinguished candle; because it is his part to prepare the light and the wine and water for Mass. But the character (if any is imprinted) is imprinted in the handing over of the cruets, because in this latter handing over the more principal power is conferred.¹⁹

5. A SUBDEACON is ordained both by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten placed upon it, and by the handing over of the book of Epistles.

Among the Greeks, the imposition of hands is had for the matter of the subdiaconate; yet they deny that the Sacrament is conferred by that imposition.²⁰

1901. II. Of the Orders which are certainly Sacraments, the ESSENTIAL MATTER, according to the more probable opinion, is the imposition of hands alone; but the FORM is the words which accompany the imposition of hands. But the handing over of the instruments is ACCIDENTAL matter, although integral. - This opinion is proved: 1. from those texts of Scripture which commemorate that both deacons and Bishops and presbyters were ordained through the imposition of hands; 2. from the Fourth Council of Carthage, where it is said: "When a deacon is ordained, the Bishop alone shall place his hands over his head"; and from Trent (sess. 14, cap. 3, on Extreme Unction), where it is declared that the ministers of Extreme Unction are priests duly ordained through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. Add that the handing over of instruments was not introduced before the eighth or ninth century. Therefore, if priests in the first centuries were validly ordained through the imposition of hands alone, it follows that Ordination essentially consists in the imposition of hands.²¹

Yet neither are the two contrary opinions improbable: of which one teaches that the matter of the diaconate, as also of the inferior Orders, consists in the handing over of the instruments alone, but the form in the accompanying words; while the other opinion contends that both the handing over of the instruments and the imposition of hands are required for the essence of the diaconate, with the corresponding form.²²

Therefore, FOR PRACTICE, according to the safer opinion which must be held:

1. The MATTER of the Diaconate is both the imposition of the hands of the Bishop over the head of each one of the Ordinands, and the handing over of the book of Gospels; and its FORM is the accompanying words.

2. The MATTER of the Presbyterate likewise is twofold, namely the handing over of the chalice with wine and water, and of the paten with bread placed upon it, and then the imposition of hands. But in the Ordination of presbyters this is threefold: the first, when the Bishop extends both hands over the head of each Ordinand, saying nothing; the second, when together with the presbyters he holds the right hand extended over the Ordinands, pronouncing these words: "Let us pray, most dear brethren, etc."; the third finally, when after Communion he again imposes both hands on the head of each, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit, etc." Hence it is asked, which of these three impositions is the essential matter? And we respond: It is certain that the first is not essential, since no form corresponds to it. But neither is the third imposition essential, according to the common opinion, both because it was not in use among the Latins through the first twelve centuries, and because it supposes them already consecrated priests, since they have already consecrated the Eucharist with the Bishop.

It remains therefore to be said that the second imposition (which is properly that of the presbytery) is the essential matter.¹

3. The necessary MATTER of the Episcopate is certainly the imposition of the hands of the consecrating Bishop, to whom two other Bishops assist, or in a case of necessity, two priests, by dispensation of the Apostolic See. - Probably there is also required for validity the imposition of the book of Gospels over the head and shoulders of the Ordinand, with the accompanying words. - Indeed, according to several, there also pertain to the essential rite both the anointing of chrism on the head, and the handing over of the pastoral staff and ring. This must be held in practice, although it is little probable.²

1902. It is to be noted, says St. Alphonsus, that in conferring sacred Orders there is required: 1. that the matter be handed over by the same Bishop who pronounces the form. But D. Thomas teaches that it is otherwise in the conferral of minor Orders.³ There is required 2. that the chalice and paten which are handed over either to the subdeacon or to the presbyter be consecrated, although many say that this is only of precept.⁴ In the Ordination of a presbyter there is required 3. that together with the chalice and paten both species of bread and wine be handed over at the same time, to express the power over the whole Sacrifice.⁵ There is required 4. that the cup of the chalice and the paten be touched at the same time; although it is commonly taught that it is not absolutely required that the host be touched immediately, just as neither is the wine ever touched immediately.⁶

Likewise, in the judgment of St. Alphonsus,⁷ for complete security physical contact of the instruments is required, and therefore moral contact of them does not suffice. And from this it follows that the Ordination of a priest who touched only the paten or only the chalice is sufficiently doubtful, and that, on account of such doubt, it must be repeated under condition.⁸ Yet mediated contact suffices, namely if the chalice or the book is touched by means of some veil or glove: for he who thus touches, in the sense of all, is truly said to touch.⁹

As regards the UNION of form and matter, the Holy Doctor furthermore notes that it is not required that the contact of the instruments be made from the beginning of the pronouncing of the form even to the end; but that it suffices if it is made before the form is terminated, or after it has been begun.¹⁰

1903. IT IS ASKED. Whether, how, and at what time defects committed in Ordination are to be SUPPLIED?

Resp. 1. GRAVE defects, certainly or probably committed, are to be supplied. Indeed, anxiety alone, arisen from a positive doubt, is a sufficient cause for repeating under condition the Ordination of a deacon, presbyter, and Bishop. - But empty doubts or true scruples are to be despised: for Bishops and other officials so watch over sacred Ordination, that moral certitude concerning its validity is always had, unless something positive stands in the contrary.¹¹

2. As regards the MANNER of correcting errors, one must distinguish: - "If the defect is concerning the essentials, namely concerning the matter and form, the Ordination must altogether be repeated; and indeed the whole, if the defect, or doubt concerning it, is concerned with the handing over of the first power over the real body of Christ; but if it is concerned with the second power concerning the mystical body, only the second must be repeated. But if the defect is concerning accidentals, then, if it is of a light thing, for instance if the Ordained did not say the Canon, such a ceremony or a similar one need not be repeated; but if in a grave thing, for example if the anointing of hands was lacking, or if the new priest did not pronounce the words (i.e., the whole form) of consecration with the Bishop, then the defect must be supplied as soon as possible, and by the same Bishop, if it can be done; otherwise the Ordained would sin gravely by neglecting this, or by ministering in the Order."¹² Yet a hidden defect is to be supplied secretly, to avoid scandal and the disturbance of others.

3. As regards the TIME in which defects are to be supplied, the Holy Doctor has these things:¹³ "If they are defects concerning accidentals, they can probably be supplied at any time. But if concerning essentials, the Salmanticenses say the same with others; but from the more probable and more common opinion, they are to be supplied at the stated times of Ordinations, as is gathered from cap. Presbyter, de Sacr. non iterand.; unless the matter concerns only a doubt of the validity of the Ordination, as several Doctors probably opine." Thus, for example, from the Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, August 19, 1851, if bodily touch of the instruments was lacking in the Ordination of a deacon, it must be supplied; but it can be supplied "privately and secretly in the action of Mass, and even outside the times of general Ordination."¹⁴

Moreover, this also is to be noted, that those things which depend on the institution of the Church, for example in the conferral of tonsure or of minor Orders, can likewise be supplied by the will of the Church.¹⁵

1516. - Matter and form are various for the various Orders.

I. As regards the Minor Orders, by reason of matter, the Ostiary 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 of one, and of a candlestick with an extinguished candle, because it belongs to him to prepare light, wine, and water for Mass. - The form proper to these Orders is contained in the words which the Bishop uses while he hands over the instruments themselves. (32) p. 422.

II. As regards Subdiaconate, among the Greeks the imposition of hands is judged as the matter. Among the Latins it is disputed. According to some, the handing over of the empty chalice with the empty paten is its only proximate matter. But others contend that the handing over of the book of Epistles is likewise the essential matter of this Order. - But the form is contained in these words: See whose ministry, etc.; according to the opinion requiring also the handing over of the book of Epistles, the form corresponding to this handing over must be added.

III. As regards Diaconate, the matter is established as twofold, namely the imposition of the right hand of the Bishop, and the handing over of the book of Gospels. Whether each of these is necessary, or only one, is in controversy. Some Theologians judge only the imposition of hands necessary; others, only the handing over of the book; others finally, each. But as regards practice, this last opinion, as the safer one, is to be held. - Consequently the form also is held as twofold. 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 Presbyterate, its matter among the Greeks is placed in the sole imposition of hands; but among the Latins it is twofold, at least by precept, namely the imposition of the hands of the Bishop, and the handing over of the chalice with wine, and of the paten with the host placed upon it. But it is disputed among Theologians what is the essential matter. More probably it consists in the second imposition of hands alone, which is made by the Bishop with the assisting Presbyters.

The form also varies according to the diversity of matter; wherefore concerning it likewise there is dispute. 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 a second time, or together with the priests.

1517. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether physical touch of the instruments is required?

Resp. St. Alphonsus says that there is given a twofold probable opinion, and consequently that the safer one must be followed in practice. There are some who think the negative opinion safe, on account of a twofold Response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the one on December 3, 1661, the other on January 21, 1863. The former sounds thus: "To the scruple of Brother Ephrem Chasteau, pro-agent of the French Recollects, namely that he did not touch with physical touch the chalice in his ordination to the Presbyterate; - the Sacred Congregation responded: That he can continue the celebration of the Most Holy Sacrifice without any scruple, and with altogether safe conscience." The latter response, which is not found in the Collection of Gardellini, is said by the patrons of the negative opinion to be altogether similar to the former both as to the case and as to the response. But from these it is in no way lawful to conclude that the negative opinion is safe. For, as the anonymous annotator of Gury, Roman ed. 1873, rightly notices, "although the doubt concerning the validity of ordination when someone omitted to touch the chalice, even if he touched the paten, is not identical with the proposed general doubt: whether physical touch of the instruments is required; nevertheless, even supposing a connection of each doubt, here it would be necessary to know whether the Sacred Congregation responded concerning a doubt of law, or rather concerning a doubt of fact, since it often happens that responses of this kind regard not questions of law, but a particular case. But that the cited resolution of the Sacred Congregation is to be received in this latter sense is suggested by the mention of scruple which occurs there; for if there had been a question of law, to bring forward a doubt of this kind, on account of the opposed opinions of Theologians, by the name of scruple, would seem alien from the practice of the Sacred Congregation." (33) p. 422.

For the rest, no reasonable and founded scruple can exist in one ordained. For in practice Bishops are accustomed to proceed in such a way that in a matter of such great moment they always hold the safer way. Besides, upon so many Ministers and Officials is incumbent the duty of watching over the rite to be observed in Ordination, so that moral certitude is had that all things were rightly and validly done.

Quaer. 2° Whether the handing over of each species is necessarily required?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because by the handing over of one species the power over the whole Sacrifice is not handed over. - St. Alphonsus.

Quaer. 3° Whether he is validly ordained who touches the host but not the paten; and who touches the chalice and paten, but not the host?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively, with the common opinion, which seems most probable. The reason is that the host and wine are the substantial matter of Order, by which principally the power over the Body of Christ is signified, and only for the sake of fittingness from the precept of the Church are chalice and paten used. Nevertheless in practice the safer part is to be followed.

Resp. to the 2nd. Also affirmatively with the common and truer opinion, says St. Alphonsus. The reason is 1° because then the host is touched by means of the paten; but immediate touch of the host is not prescribed by the Church, but only of the paten, as is clear from the Pontifical; 2° because the wine in the chalice is never touched immediately: therefore neither is it required that the host be touched immediately. For the rest, the one to be ordained must take care that he touch the chalice, the paten, and at the same time the host, and thus he will remove himself from every scruple.

Notes near nn. 1516-1517, matter and form of Order and physical touch (printed p. 209).

1 L. VI. 749. | 2 Ib. 739 sq. | 3 Ib. 743. | 4 Gardell. 2143. Vol. I. p. 364.

Notes near n. 1517, touch of instruments and species (printed p. 210).

1 P. II. n. 702. (1). (*). Cf. Vindic. p. 358. 2a Ed. T. I. p. 439 sq. | 2 L. VI. 750. | 3 Ib. 751.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 34, a. 4 and 5; q. 37, a. 5; III, q. 84, a. 4.

717. State of the question. - In the Scriptures no other rite of sacred ordination is indicated except the imposition of hands, to which sacramental grace is ascribed; similarly the Fathers, Liturgies, and Euchologies down to the ninth century attribute the conferral of the priesthood to the imposition of hands alone. In the eighth or ninth century there appears the handing over of the instruments, namely, of the paten with the offerings and of the chalice with wine, as is indicated in various Sacramentaries of Gaul and Germany. The handing over was never received by the Greeks, but, introduced into the Roman liturgy in the eleventh century, it was admitted and prescribed in the whole Latin Church; indeed it was regarded as the more principal part of ordination, as is clear from the doctrine of the Scholastics and of the Council of Florence itself, in the decree for the Armenians. In the eleventh century a second imposition of hands, at the end of Mass, was used in certain Churches, which afterward became common in the West. The evolution in the rites of ordination was slow and endured until the fifteenth century; nevertheless, in the thirteenth century it was complete as regards the handing over of the instruments, which then was universally received in the West.

Therefore in the Latin Church there is present in the ordination of priests:

1. The imposition of hands by the bishop, and by the presbyters, upon the head of each ordinand in silence, and then the extension of hands over all the ordinands with the prayer: Let us pray, brethren... hear us... and with the preface, by which respectively priestly grace and the dignity of the presbyterate are sought for them from God. There two impositions can be distinguished, of which the latter is a continuation of the prior.

2. After the stole and chasuble have been handed over, and the hands of the ordinands anointed, the handing over of the instruments is made, as has been said, under the words: 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.

3. After the consecration of the Sacrifice and the communion have been completed, at the end another imposition of hands is made by the bishop alone upon each one, under the words: Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall remit...

From what has been said it is clear that in the Greek Church, as formerly in the Latin Church, the rite of ordination is nothing other than the imposition of hands with the concomitant form. Before the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of November 30, 1947, the question was much agitated whether the same holds today in the Latin Church, or what must be regarded as the rite of valid ordination in our times.

718. Diverse opinions. - For solving the said question a multiple opinion has been pronounced:

The first holds that only the first imposition of hands is the essence of the Sacrament, both because it alone is found in the Scriptures and alone was used in the first eight centuries, and because today it alone is used among the Greeks. This opinion belongs to a few in the middle age; after the sixteenth century it had several defenders, among whom were Morinus and Martene; and in the nineteenth century it became by far the more common, so that Cardinal Van Rossum and Pesch called it morally certain. For the Church cannot change the matter and form of the sacraments; and even if it could do this, it is not proved that such was the intention of the Church, since this is clear from no juridical text. As to the decree of the Council of Florence, many have said that it was disciplinary, not dogmatic; others acknowledge it to be dogmatic, but, like Cardinal Van Rossum, say that in this matter the Council erred.

The second, on the contrary, acknowledges no essential rite of Order except only the handing over of the instruments. Thus many Scholastics, so that from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century this opinion was by far the more common; and it was adopted by the Council of Florence, and down to the eighteenth century always had several defenders; but in the nineteenth century it was almost abandoned, though in most recent times it is again defended by Hugon and Galtier.

In this opinion it is necessary to say that Christ did not determine the rite of Order in its ultimate species, but that the Church prescribed one rite and another for various times and places.

The third says that the essential rite consists both in the handing over of the instruments, by which the power of consecrating, or over the true body of Christ, is conferred, and in the last imposition of hands, by which the power of remitting sins, or over the mystical body of Christ, is conferred. Thus Scotus and, after him, several down to the eighteenth century, among whom were Bellarmine and Billuart.

The fourth holds that either one, namely, either the first imposition of hands or the handing over of the instruments, is valid matter. Thus a few in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as Amicus, Diana, Esparza, Clericatus, Jerome of St. Augustine, O.S.Tr. This opinion, insofar as it would affirm that the bishop can choose between either rite, is false, because it does not belong to the minister, but to Christ and the Church, to determine the essential rites of a sacrament; but insofar as it would affirm that, according to the diversity of times and places, the matter is diverse according to the diverse determination of the Church, it coincides with several other opinions.

The fifth holds both, namely, the first imposition of hands together with the handing over of the instruments, to be in the Latin Church the rite necessary for the validity of the sacrament. Thus perhaps certain ones in antiquity, but several in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; more recently it is defended by Billot, Tanquerey, Herve, Noldin, Van Noort.

The sixth finally says that the matter consists of three things, and that not only the handing over of the instruments, but also the last imposition of hands, equally with the first, is essentially required for the sacrament. Thus, from the seventeenth century onward, several: Lugo, Gotti, Egger, Dalponte.

719. The matter of priestly ordination in present times in the Latin Church consists in the first imposition of hands which is done in silence, not however in the continuation of the same by extension of the right hand, nor in the last imposition, to which are joined the words: "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall remit, etc..."

In the Greek Church and in certain other Eastern Churches there exists only the imposition of hands, although here and there certain varieties are present.

It is proved: 1. From the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis,¹ in which the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII, divine light having been invoked, by supreme authority and certain knowledge declares, and, insofar as there is need, decrees and disposes those things which are contained in the thesis just placed.

¹ Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, November 30, 1947. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XL, 1948, pp. 5-7.

2. As to the positive part, namely, the necessity and validity of the first imposition of hands, from the constant use of this rite from the first times both in the Latin Church and in the Greek Church. This rite was always observed, not only in the ordinations of presbyters but also of bishops and deacons. This the Council of Trent also insinuates, sess. 14 on Extreme Unction, c. 3, when it says of the ministers of Extreme Unction that they are priests "ordained by the imposition of the hands of the presbyterate."

3. As to the positive and negative part together, namely, the necessity and sufficiency for the substance and validity according as it depends on the institution of Our Lord Jesus Christ, from the fact that the Roman Church has always held ordinations conferred by the Greek rite without the handing over of the instruments to be valid. Nor is it an obstacle that in the Decree of the Council of Trent for the Armenians it is established: "The sixth Sacrament is Order, whose matter is that by the handing over of which Order is conferred: just as the Presbyterate is handed over by the presentation of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread, etc." (Denz. 701). For by no means did the Council impose upon the Greeks that they should change the rite of ordination or insert into it the handing over of the instruments; indeed the Church willed that in the City itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their proper rite. From these things it is gathered, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence, that the handing over of the instruments is not required for the substance and validity of this sacrament by the will of Our Lord Himself.²

² Nevertheless, concerning the right interpretation itself of the Decree for the Armenians, concerning its dogmatic or disciplinary value, and concerning other controversies in interpreting the Decree, the Supreme Pontiff did not wish to establish anything. He determines only that if in the course of the centuries the presentation of the instruments at some time had been necessary for the value of the sacrament, this would have been from the will of the Church (not from the institution of Christ), so that what the Church established it also has power to change and abrogate.

4. By theological reason from the very essentials of the sacrament according to the text of the same Apostolic Constitution cited above: "But it is established among all that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs and efficient of invisible grace, must signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced, and therefore signified, by the Sacred Ordination of the Diaconate, Presbyterate, and Episcopate, namely power and grace, are found to be sufficiently signified in all the rites of the universal Church of diverse times and regions by the imposition of hands and by the words determining it."

Note. From the said Constitution, which was issued to remove every controversy concerning the essential rites and to block the way against anxieties of consciences, it is most certainly clear that the handing over of the instruments, and the continuation of the first imposition of hands, and the last imposition of hands do not pertain to the substance of the Sacrament nor are required in the future for validity. As to past times, the Apostolic Constitution determines nothing concerning the rites necessary for validity, so that the diverse opinions set forth above remain the object of free controversy.

720. The form of priestly ordination in the Latin Church for the future consists in the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential, and therefore required for validity: "Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty Father, to this Thy servant the dignity of the Presbyterate; renew in his inward parts the spirit of holiness, that he may obtain from Thee, O God, the office of the second merit, received by him, and by the example of his conduct may insinuate the censure of morals."

Thus in the Latin Church. In the Greek Church, however, the whole form is in the words which accompany the single imposition of hands: "Divine grace, which always heals what is weak and supplies what is lacking, promotes N., most devout deacon, to presbyter; let us pray for him, that the grace of the Most Holy Spirit may come upon him."

It is proved from the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis determining the words of the form. - As to the sense of the form, because it pertains to the substance of the sacrament instituted by Christ, no power belongs to the Church (Council of Trent, sess. 7, c. 1; Denz. 844. Sess. 21, c. 2; Denz. 931); but the Church can establish, indeed sometimes must establish, the words expressing this sense. Therefore, as the form of the sacrament there must be considered the words determining the application of the matter, by which the sacramental effects are univocally signified and which are accepted and used by the Church as such.

721. Practical corollaries. - Since in administering the sacraments the safer course must be taken, lest they be exposed to danger of nullity, therefore in practice before the Apostolic Constitution of the year 1947 attention had to be paid to all opinions, and all rites which according to some opinion perhaps were required had to be observed, with none omitted; because the validity of the sacrament is not established unless all things have been rightly performed. But if certain of these had been omitted or were doubtful, the ordination had to be repeated under condition, or at least the defect supplied.

All these things have force even after the Apostolic Constitution if it is a question of omissions and doubts in ordinations made before April 28, 1948 (before the midnight between the 27th and the 28th). For from this day the juridical document obtains effect and its dispositions do not have retroactive force.

Hence for ordinations made before April 28: 1. If the first imposition of hands had been omitted, and indeed whether the particular imposition or the subsequent extension, the ordination will have to be repeated from the beginning, because they dispute whether the former or the latter or either one suffices (S. Off., July 21, 1899; July 4, 1900; March 7, 1902); the imposition probably must be done by bodily touch (ibid.), which nevertheless suffices if mediate, for example, upon a covered head (S. Off., Jan. 22, 1890).

2. If the handing over of the consecrated chalice and paten with both species had been omitted, even partially, at least under condition the whole ordination is to be repeated (S. C. C., Feb. 11, 1708; S. Off., July 6, 1898; Jan. 11, 1899): contact probably is required to be physical, but mediate contact suffices, whence it seems sufficient to touch one thing by means of which the rest are touched.

3. Nevertheless the consecration of the chalice with the paten does not seem required for validity, because the S. Off. in a rescript of Jan. 28, 1937, declared in a certain such case that the ordination was not to be repeated.

4. If certain essentials had been omitted from the words of the form in the handing over of the instruments; or under the extension of hands in the prayer: Let us pray, brethren... hear us, or in the preface, likewise the ordination will have to be repeated from the beginning.

5. If the last imposition of hands or the concomitant form had been omitted, it will have to be supplied (S. C. R., May 22, 1841; S. Off., March 4, 1874; Dec. 9, 1897).

6. It is certain that the anointing of the hands, the handing over of the vestments, and the imposition of hands by the assisting priests are not sacramental, but merely accidental; nevertheless an omitted anointing, and probably the handing over of the vestments, must afterward be supplied.

Reordination or supplying can be done by any bishop, even outside the times and secretly (can. 1007); in a case of a hidden defect, it must be done secretly, to avoid scandal and disturbance of the faithful.

But under the new regime determined by the Apostolic Constitution, ordination will have to be repeated absolutely if certain essentials from the form, as determined above, were omitted, or even if the first imposition of hands had been omitted or was made without at least moral touch.³ Under condition the ordination will have to be repeated if something doubtful occurs concerning the essentials for validity. - But whether the ordination is to be repeated from the beginning or only in part the Apostolic Constitution does not determine. And although it is probable that the ordination must be repeated from the beginning, nevertheless it will be prudent in individual cases to have recourse to the Holy See according to the explicit statute of the Constitution itself: "If any doubt occurs, it is to be submitted to this Apostolic See." The same has force concerning ceremonies not essential which are to be repeated or supplied, concerning which nothing is had in the Constitution.

³ Concerning the validity of merely moral touch it was also established in the Constitution: "But lest an occasion of doubting be furnished, We command that the imposition of hands in conferring any Order be done by physically touching the head of the Ordinand, although even moral touch suffices for validly confecting the Sacrament."

722. Note. - The sacrament is not to be repeated under condition, nor is a defect to be supplied, unless there is at least a positive doubt concerning the defect; namely, light and negative or scrupulous doubts are not to be attended to. Whence we read in St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 757: "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." And in practice the one ordained can in this matter trust the testimony of the priest who assists the bishop.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 35.

723. The effect of the sacrament of Order is grace for rightly fulfilling sacred functions and power for exercising them. - This is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 3 and 4, can. 4.

A. Order confers grace upon those who do not place an obstacle, which is of faith from the Council of Trent, the cited canon, and sess. 7, can. 1 and 6: namely, grace necessary for the good use of sacred power, or for rightly exercising the sacred ministry and dispensing the sacraments; "an increase of grace," says the Council of Florence, "that one may be a fit minister." For "to whomever any power is given divinely, there are also given those things through which the execution of that power can fittingly be done" (a. 1).

But it confers:

I say. The matter and form of the sacrament of Order is varied according to the various Orders. But what in this matter is certain among theologians, or even more probable, is contained in the following:

I. As regards the minor Orders, the matter for the Ostiariate is the handing over of the keys of the church; indeed, according to the Response of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide to the Vicar Apostolic of Cochin-China, 22 March 1844, it is not required that they be the keys of the church; and according to another Response of the S. R. C., given on the day 11 March 1820, one key would suffice for validity. For the Lectorate, the matter is the handing over of the book of lessons; for the Exorcistate, the handing over of the book of exorcisms; and for the Acolythate, the handing over of the empty cruets, or at least of one, and of a candlestick with an extinguished candle. But the form proper to these Orders is contained in the words which the Bishop uses while he hands over the instruments themselves. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 745.

II. As regards the Subdiaconate, among the Greeks the imposition of hands is reckoned as the matter; but among Latins it is controverted. According to some, the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten is its sole proximate matter. But others contend that the handing over of the book of Epistles is likewise essential matter of this Order. Consequently the form, according to the first, is contained only in these words: "See whose ministry is handed on to you; therefore I admonish you that you so exhibit yourselves that you may be able to please God"; according to the latter, the words by which the Bishop hands over the book of Epistles also would be required. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 746.

III. As regards the Diaconate, a twofold matter is established, namely the imposition of the right hand of the Bishop and the handing over of the book of Gospels. Whether each of these, or only one, is necessary is in controversy. Some theologians reckon only the imposition of hands, others only the handing over of the book, and still others both as necessary. But as regards practice, this last opinion, as being safer, is to be held. Consequently a twofold form also is had. That which is added to the prior 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 sort: "Receive [or: Receive, you all] 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." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 748.

IV. As regards the Presbyterate, its matter among the Greeks is situated in the imposition of hands alone; among the Latins it is greatly controverted, and there are three opinions. The first holds that the matter is the handing over of the instruments alone; but the form is the words which the Bishop pronounces in handing over the instruments, namely: "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." - The other opinion, besides the handing over of the instruments, by which only the power of sacrificing would be received, requires also that imposition of hands by which power over the mystical body is handed on through the words: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." - Finally the third opinion, which is more probable, holds that both the power of sacrificing and of absolving are handed on through the second imposition of hands, which is made by the Bishop together with the assisting presbyters, and consequently that this alone is the essential matter; but that the form is the prayer which the Bishop then says. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 749. - De Augustinis, Thesis 7, p. 91.

Question 1. Whether physical touch of the instruments is required?

Resp. According to St. Alphonsus the affirmative opinion is probable and consequently in practice to be held as safer. - To some the negative opinion had seemed safe on account of a response given by the S. R. C. to a certain French Religious by the name of Ephrem Chasteau, but that response proves nothing; for in the proposed Doubt it was indeed said that the Religious Ephrem Chasteau had not touched the chalice, but no mention was made about physical touch of the paten. Besides, it could be said that the S. Congregation wished in some particular case to resolve a doubt of fact for removing a scruple, but not to decide a question of law. It must also be added that the C. S. O. on 19 August 1851 said that the imposition of hands in the ordination of a presbyter was to be supplied if it had been made without bodily touch. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 743. - Baller. note (a), p. 666. - Konings, n. 1517.

Therefore, practically speaking, the one to be ordained must physically touch the instruments and proceed cautiously, but not entangle himself in scruples and anxieties, since for these there is generally no reasonable foundation. For in practice Bishops are accustomed to proceed in such a way that in a matter of such moment they always hold the safer way. Besides, the duty of watching over the rite to be observed in Ordination falls upon so many Ministers and Officials that moral certitude is had that all things were done rightly and validly.

Question 2. Whether the handing over of each species is necessarily required?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because through the handing over of one species power over the whole Sacrifice is not handed on. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 750.

Question 3. Whether he is validly ordained who touches the host, but not the paten; and he who touches the chalice and paten, but not the host?

Resp. Affirmatively to the first, with the common opinion, which seems most probable; and the reason is because the host and wine are the substantial matter of Order, by which principally power over the body of Christ is signified; and the chalice and paten are used from the precept of the Church for the sake of decency alone. Affirmatively also must be answered to the second, with the common and truer opinion, as St. Alphonsus says. The reason is both because then the host is touched by means of the paten, but immediate touch of the host is not prescribed by the Church, but only of the paten, as is clear from the Pontifical; and because wine in the chalice is never touched immediately: therefore neither is it required that the host be touched immediately. Moreover, in practice the safer part is to be held, and care is to be taken that the one to be ordained touch the chalice, the paten, and at the same time the host; and thus he will free himself from every scruple. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 752. - Lehmkuhl, n. 591.

I. In the celebrated decree for the Armenians Eugenius IV established these things concerning the matter and form of the sacred ordinations: The sixth sacrament is of Order, whose matter is that by whose delivery the Order is conferred. As the presbyterate is delivered through the holding out of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread; the diaconate through the giving of the book of the Gospels; the subdiaconate through the delivery of the empty chalice with the empty paten placed upon it. The form of the priesthood is such: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and so of the forms of the other Orders, as is contained at large in the Roman Pontifical.

II. Resting upon this authority very many theologians defend that the essential matter of the sacrament of Order is set in the holding out of the instruments, and the form in the prayer which is recited while they are held out. But great trouble is made in this controversy by the fact that the Greek Church confers sacred ordinations by the imposition of hands and the prayer alone, no instruments being employed, save after the ordination is completed. What of this, that neither did the Latin Church for a long interval of ages employ the aforesaid instruments? This difficulty has divided theologians into various opinions. That seems to me the more probable which teaches that the imposition of hands is the essential matter and the annexed prayer the form; but that the holding out of the instruments with the words added to it is an accidental and integral matter and form, for the greater expression and declaration of the effect; and the theologians of that opinion contend that Eugenius IV spoke of this accessory matter and form. There is added the perpetual use of the universal Church, which in the ordaining of sacred ministers has always employed the imposition of hands and prayer. That the holding out of the instruments is not the essential but an accessory and integral matter is plain from this, that no vestige of it is had in holy Scripture; that the Latin Church itself through the first ten centuries did not employ these instruments; and that the Greek Church does not use them even at present, whose ordinations nevertheless the Latin Church holds as ratified.

III. For the rest, in practice all those things are to be observed which the Church prescribes. The things which have been said above comprehend chiefly the sacred or hierarchical Orders — the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate — to whose essential matter the instruments have been adjoined, namely to the diaconate the book of the Gospels, to the presbyterate the unction and the holding out of the chalice and paten with the sacred symbols to be consecrated. But of the other Orders — namely the subdiaconate and the four minor — the matter and form are the instruments and the prayers which the bishop recites in delivering them. Those who defend that these Orders are sacraments say that in the very holding out of the instruments the imposition of hands is understood. Thus the matter of the ostiariate is the delivery of the keys and of the little bell. The form: So act as those who are to render an account, and so forth. The matter of the lectorate is the delivery of holy Scripture. The form: Receive, and be relaters of the word of God, and so forth. The matter of the exorcistate is the delivery of the book of exorcisms, or the Pontifical. The form: Receive, and commit to memory, and so forth. The matter of the acolythate is the delivery of the candlestick with an extinguished taper. The form: Receive the candlestick with the taper, and so forth. The partial matter of the subdiaconate is the delivery of the empty chalice with the paten placed upon it. The form: See of what sort a ministry is delivered to you, and so forth. The matter of the diaconate is the imposition of hands with the delivery of the codex of the Gospels. The matter of the presbyterate is the imposition of hands with the delivery of the chalice and paten, the sacred symbols to be consecrated being added. As I have already said, in these three hierarchical Orders — the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate — the imposition of the hand is express, and has always been used in the Church. Authors dispute whether it be necessary to touch the individual parts of the matter — suppose the chalice, the paten, and so forth. And they commonly teach that it is enough to touch some part of the matter, either the chalice or the paten, and so forth. It behoves that this contact be physical, nor does a moral one suffice, as the more common opinion teaches.

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.

Case.—A few years ago there circulated in the press the sensational report that a certain man in an Italian town had received Holy Orders and had then renounced the priesthood for the reason that he had been forced into it by his parents. In order to obtain a valid decision in the matter, he instituted a canonical suit at the Curia, which had finally been referred to the Holy Congregation of the Sacraments. This Congregation, under its presiding officer, Cardinal Ferrata, was said to have decided that the ordination in this case was invalid, and that this man was free from all obligations imposed by the priesthood. It was reported that the man had subsequently been admitted to the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Question.—What is to be thought of this story?

Solution.—This piece of news created so much discussion, that, in order to obtain an authentic statement of the facts, the editor of the Quartalschrift, of Linz, addressed himself to an authority in Rome and elicited the following information.

Like any other Sacrament the Sacrament of Holy Orders can be administered invalidly, and whenever this has been the case, and has been positively ascertained by the proper ecclesiastical authority, the one so ordained is not considered a priest. If the reason of invalidity of such an ordination is found in the lack of the necessary matter, or form, of the Sacrament, the invalidity can usually be clearly ascertained. In such a case the proper authority, after careful examination of the case, just as clearly pronounces the invalidity, if this is called for, and, whenever possible, the matter

” is then adjusted by a valid ordination. It is entirely different if an ordination is to be declared invalid on account of a lack of the necessary intention. It is a positive fact that intention is necessary to validly receive this Sacrament, and it is also a fact that one is not a priest, and has been ordained invalidly, who, in receiving Holy Orders, explicitly and positively did not will to become a priest.

Physical compulsion to receive Holy Orders is hardly possible, but unfortunately there are rare instances in which young men are, especially by their relations, morally forced to become priests. If then one so ordained appeals to the Holy Congregation of the Sacraments, to have his ordination declared invalid, this Congregation is obliged to carefully examine the facts, and this is done with great thoroughness and in plena Congregatione. After careful investigation and examination the Cardinals of the Congregation are in the first place requested to vote on the question: “Is the invalidity of the ordination established?” Is the invalidity of the ordination certain?

This question has in no such instance been answered in the affirmative, and in all such cases the answer has been either “negative” or “provisum in responsione ad secundum.” Thereupon the Congregation is required to vote on the second question: “Is the nullity of the obligations attached to the priesthood established,” or “or of those attached to ordination?” Is the invalidity or nullity of the obligations incurred in Holy Orders certain in this case?

It is easily possible that in discussing the first question the probability, though not certainty, of invalidity became apparent. Such would be the case if it was found that the one ordained was so much influenced and urged in receiving Holy Orders, that the freedom necessary for assuming the heavy obligations of Holy Orders was entirely absent. In such cases it would not always follow that the ordination itself was invalid, but it would follow that the one ordained had not assumed the onera ordinationis, the duties of the ordination. In such case the answer to the second question would be affirmative.

In the case referred to in the newspaper report the first question was answered with “no” and the second with “yes.” The report was, therefore, false in as far as the ordination had not been declared invalid. The proceeding in such cases is one that contributes to the honor of the Catholic Church, as it clearly demonstrates how careful the Church values and protects, on the one hand, the holiness of the Sacrament and of the priesthood, and, on the other hand, the freedom of the individual.