ORDERS AND ORDINATION
ORDERS AND ORDINATION — Priestly ordination. Miniature from the Pontifical of Landolfo I (957–84) — Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 724 B. I. 13.
The Apostles scrupulously applied [these orders] to the newly founded Christian communities, as St. Clement of Rome acknowledges (1 Cor. 42, 2, 4). Later (3rd–1st centuries), the Church added, by its own authority, other lower grades to the hierarchy of divine origin: subdiaconate, acolytate, exorcistate, lectorate, and ostiariate (v. these entries).
III. TRANSMISSION OF THE THREE GRADES — From the very beginning, only the Apostles, in whom resided the fullness of priestly powers, conferred Orders upon deacons (Acts 6:6), presbyters (Acts 14:23), and bishops (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). Timothy and Titus were probably the first disciples of Paul to whom the Apostle conferred the episcopate, assigning them to specific communities (Timothy to Ephesus and Titus to Crete), even though he reserved for himself the supreme direction of the Churches he had founded.
This initial practice became explicit teaching in the most ancient liturgical documents, e.g., in the *Apostolikh parédosis* of Hippolytus of Rome (early 3rd century): “A presbyter... does not have the power to confer Orders, and therefore cannot constitute clerics” (8, 7–8, ed. A. Casamassa, Rome 1947, p. 19 [for private use]), and in the *Didascalia Syriaca* (3rd century) (3, 20). By the 4th century, the Fathers gave a clearer formulation: “What does the bishop do that the presbyter does not, except for ordination?” (St. Jerome, *Ep.* 146, 1: PL 22, 1194); “Bishops are superior to priests only in the power of ordaining” (St. John Chrysostom, *Hom. II in Tim.*, no. 1: PG 62, 553); likewise St. Epiphanius (*Haer.* 75, 4: PG 42, 507), who did not hesitate to call Aërius mad, since he was the first (can. 375) to attribute to priests the power of ordaining (ibid.).
To this doctrine, confirmed by constant and universal practice, two papal documents have recently been opposed, by which it would have been granted to simple priests, even if bearing the title of abbots, the faculty of ordaining priests and deacons. In 1924, F. Fofi published for the third time (the first edition was in 1911 [F. Beck], the second in 1921 [F. Gilmann]) a bull, *Sacrae religioni*, by which Boniface IX in 1400 granted to the abbot of the Canons Regular of St. Osith (diocese of London) the faculty “to confer freely and licitly” upon his subjects “all minor orders as well as the subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate,” “in accordance with the statutes of the law at that time.” The discovery caused a stir, but a careful examination of the terminology and circumstances in which the bull was promulgated—and later revoked in 1403—permits the conclusion that the expression “to ordain freely and licitly” is to be understood, according to the style of the time, as the faculty of granting dimissorial letters for ordination, which a bishop of the abbot’s free choice could have done, independently of the bishop of London (cf. J. Puig de la Bellacasa, *La bula « Sacrae religioni » de Bonifacio IX*, in *Estudios eclesiásticos*, 4 [1925], pp. 3–19, 113–137; F. Cappello, *De Sacra Ordinatione*, Rome 1935, pp. 249–259; Ch. Journet, *L'Église du Verbe Incarné*, I, Paris 1941, p. 112, n. 2).
In 1489, Innocent VIII issued the bull *Expositi* in favor of Giovanni de Cirey, abbot of Cîteaux and of the abbots of La Ferté, Pontigny, Clairvaux, and Morimond, granting them the privilege of conferring the subdiaconate and diaconate upon their own monks “so that they would not need to wander outside the cloister hither and thither.” The bull was printed in the *Collectio Cisterciensium privilegiorum* (Dijon 1491, Paris 1713), and its validity was widely debated (cf. Pie de Langogne, *De bulla innocentiana*, Rome 1902). Today, many doubt its authenticity, since after extensive research neither an authentic copy has been found among the Cistercians nor a draft in the Vatican Archives; some therefore believe the document to be a forgery by the famous papal bull forgers, one of whom was hanged in 1489, especially since it contains an unusual privilege granted in such a straightforward manner, as if it were a normal matter. De Cirey, a simple man, may have been deceived. There are, however, defenders of its authenticity (e.g., C. Baisi, *Il ministro straordinario degli O. sacramentali*, Rome 1937, pp. 13–28; Y. Congar, *Faits, problèmes et réflexions à propos du pouvoir d'Ordre et des rapports entre le presbytère et l'épiscopat*, in *La Maison Dieu*, 14 [1947], pp. 107–128). Since the question is still sub iudice, nothing certain can be deduced against the common teaching. Recent discussion has also focused on a bull of Martin V: *La bulla « Gerentes ad vos » de Martin V*, in *Collect. Ord. Cist. Reformatorum*, 1951, pp. 1–7, 197–205.
IV. MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS — From all the Church’s documents, it emerges that Ordination has been constantly conferred by the laying on of hands accompanied by a prayer that specifies and determines its meaning according to the different grades of the hierarchy.
Scripture opens the series of testimonies: Acts 6:6, “These (seven) they set before the apostles, and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them” (ordination of deacons); Acts 14:23, “And when (Paul and Barnabas) had appointed elders in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they believed” (presbyteral ordination). More debated, however, is the text of Acts 13:2–3 concerning the ordination of Paul and Barnabas: “Then, having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them off.” Coppens (v. BIBLICA., pp. 133) considers this ceremony a true episcopal ordination, with the rite now fixed as the laying on of hands and accompanying prayer, performed in this case by extraordinary ministers chosen directly by God. Two texts from the Pastoral Epistles seem to speak of a true episcopal ordination: 1 Tim 4:14, “Do not neglect the gift (χάρισμα) you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” St. Paul refers to Timothy’s assumption to the ministry through two successive acts: the designation of the person made by some prophet (per prophetiam) present in the community (a case analogous to the choice of Barnabas and Paul in Acts 13:2), and the laying on of hands performed by the Apostle and the college of local presbyters (Ephesus, according to many Catholic exegetes; Lystra in Pisidia, according to Protestant authors). The effect of this rite is a permanent gift (χάρισμα) on which Timothy can rely to be faithful to his ministry. Another text: 2 Tim 1:6, “For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.” St. Paul no longer recalls the presence of the prophets or the intervention of the presbyters as preceding or concomitant circumstances of the ordination, but refers to the principal minister and the essential rite (per impositionem manuum mearum), illustrating the nature of the grace (χάρισμα) communicated to the disciple: a gift of the Spirit, “a spirit of power and love and self-control” (ibid., 1:7). That this refers to a true episcopal ordination was the opinion of St. Epiphanius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, a view now confirmed by distinguished Catholic scholars (Michiels, Bruders, Coppens) and independent critics (Harnack, Knopf, Gore-Turner), motivated by the fact that all the functions proper to a bishop are attributed by St. Paul to his disciple: the duty to preach (2 Tim 1:8), to guard the deposit of revelation (1:14 and 1 Tim 6:20), to rule and govern the Church (ibid., 5:1–23), and the power to lay hands (ibid., 5:22).
To explain this change of direction in the theology of the sacrament of Orders, the idea was advanced that Christ could institute some sacraments (e.g., Confirmation [V. and the sacrament of Orders]) with a generic determination or a mutable specification of the rite (cf. F. Carpino, *De Sacramentis in communi*, Rome 1950, pp. 231-33, 242 [for private use]), leaving to the Church the faculty to better determine the elements according to the circumstances and needs of its centuries-long existence. Thus, as regards the sacrament of Orders, the Apostles chose, under the influence of the rites of the Old Testament, the laying on of hands (v.); the Eastern Church remained faithful to this rite, while the Roman Church added to it (through intrinsic evolution [Biblolatry, De Guibert, van Noort, Tymzak], or through extrinsic addition [Scotus, Toledo, Lessius, Frassen, Billuart], or through mixed addition [Lugo, Gotti, Amort]) or substituted for it (Biel, D. Soto, Gregory of Valencia, Hugon, Galtier) the *traditio instrumentorum*. The change, made gradually with tacit approval, received its solemn confirmation at the Council of Florence (1439).
This process of ideas, possible and perfectly orthodox, today gains greater theoretical probability from an aside made by Pius XII in the apostolic constitution *Sacramento Ordinis* of 30 November 1947: “If this (the handing over of the instruments) was, by the will and prescription of the Church, at one time necessary even for validity, everyone knows that the Church can also change and abrogate what it has established” (*AAS*, 40 [1948], p. 6). With this theory everything harmonizes in the historical and ideological development of the sacramental rite and of Ordination, and the *Decretum pro Armenis* acquires a particular significance. But this is not the only way to explain the facts and interpret the documents. It may be held that the Western Church remained constantly faithful to the initial rite without ever adding to it, even as an extrinsic complement *ad validitatem*, any other rite (e.g., the *traditio instrumentorum*). Instead, it was the opinion of theologians that varied, and this directly influenced the decree of Eugenius IV, who, however, did not intend to give any definition in sacramental matters, but rather to present to the Armenians (who since the 12th century had introduced the rite of the handing over of the instruments) the most common doctrine of Latin theologians concerning the seven sacraments and in particular on Orders. Therefore Eugenius IV in the *Decretum pro Armenis*, contrary to what Cardinal van Rossum believed, did not err in any way because he did not intend to pronounce definitively.
The apostolic constitution of Pius XII, *Sacramento Ordinis* (a document to be revered as the act of the supreme jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff [cf. F. Hürth, *La cost. Sacramento Ordinis*, in *Civ. Catt.*, 1919, 11, p. 627]), while opportunely using the hypothetical clause *quatenus opus sit*, out of respect for the other theological opinion and to remove any doubt,
brings back the practice and doctrine of the Latin Church to the bedrock of its most ancient tradition and shows the Eastern Churches the common concord in the unity of the rites of Ordination: “The unique matter of the sacred Orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate is the laying on of hands, and the unique form is the words that determine (verba determinantia) the application of this matter, which words univocally signify the sacramental effects, namely the power of Orders and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and as such are received and used by the Church. Therefore, to remove any doubt and anxiety, we declare and establish by our apostolic authority that, if ever it had been otherwise arranged, from now on (saltem in posterum) the handing over of the instruments shall no longer be necessary for the valid conferral of the Orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate.” The Supreme Pontiff further precisely determines in which concrete rite of the Roman Pontifical the matter and form of the triple Ordination are contained: “In the Ordination of the diaconate the matter is the unique laying on of hands that takes place in the ceremony, the form consists of the words: *Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exequendi septiformis Gratiae tuae munere roboretur*. In the Ordination of the priest the matter is the first laying on of hands by the bishop, which is done in silence, the form consists of the words: *Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum presbyterii dignitatem, innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet*. In the episcopal consecration the matter is the laying on of hands by the consecrating bishop, the form consists of the words: *Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctificata*” (*AAS*, 40 [1948], pp. 6-7).
V. THE EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS – The sources of Revelation are unanimous in attributing to the rite of Ordination a supernatural efficacy in relation to grace: χάρισμα (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6): “The fullness of the Spirit... operates especially in Ordination” (St. Innocent I, *Ep.*, 24, 4; PL 20, 530; ample documentation in Michel [V. BIBLICA.], cols. 1255-57).
As regards the character (v.), a process of explication is noted: the priestly powers conferred in Orders are considered, from the beginning, as unchangeable realities (cf. St. Clement of Rome, *1 Cor.* 44-45; PG 1, 295-302), which transcend the level of a mere extrinsic deputization: already in the 4th century it is held that priestly offices are granted with a profound transformation of the priest’s soul (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, *In Bapt. Christi*; PG 46, 582-83); in the 5th century this transformation is considered an indelible consecration of the spirit, distinct and separable from grace (cf. St. Augustine, *Contra ep. Parmeniani*, 2, 28; PL 43, 70).
Since all ancient documents, particularly the liturgical formulas, speak of infused grace and of powers truly conferred in each of the three Orders, it is deduced that the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate, to varying degrees, are truly sacramental Orders.
The theological elucidation of the intimate nature of the character and of the grace of Orders, especially of the priesthood, is the foundation of what today is called “priestly spirituality.”
1. The character
The character of Orders is the highest participation in the priesthood of Christ, for while the characters of Baptism and Confirmation associate the faithful with the consecration and the indirect (and very limited) exercise of some priestly powers of Christ, Orders makes a Christian a priest in the full sense. Indeed, the character of Orders is the most perfect ontological consecration of the faithful, which transforms his soul, almost as the Eucharistic consecration transmutes bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ: this comparison is from St. Gregory of Nyssa (*In Bapt. Christi*; PG 46, 582-83). Through this consecrationthe ordained becomes, in the full sense, an “ontological medium” between the two extremes to be reconciled: God and men.
Moreover, by virtue of his character, the priest obtains immediate power over the real Body of Christ, with the faculty of rendering it present on the altar through the words of the Transubstantiation and of offering it as an acceptable sacrifice to the Father (ascending mediation). This is the principal act of the priest; all else refers to it as preparation and extension, so that priestly activity is the center and end of the entire hierarchy. Whoever acts upon the Head influences the whole body. As the consecrator of the real Body of Christ, the priest acquires direct power over the mystical Body. Jesus clearly indicated what was included in the sacrificial power conferred at the Last Supper, when, on the eve of the Ascension, He gave the Apostles the command to teach, sanctify, and govern all nations (Mt. 28:18-19). This threefold power is in service of the first: to render the faithful worthy adorers of God in the supreme act of worship: the sacrifice of the Mass. By preaching, sanctifying, and governing, the priest diffuses the light, virtue, and grace that dispose souls for the Eucharist, the center of the Christian religion.
The highest right to grace, since in the present economy of salvation the office of priest and the state of victim coincide in the same person (for Christ was indeed “sacerdos suae hostiae et hostia sui sacerdotii” [St. Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 9 to Severus]), the more one participates in the priestly office, the more perfectly must one reproduce within his spirit the sentiments of the Victim, opposing all tendencies that conflict with the law of the spirit. This confers a place of preeminence within ecclesiastical society. The Church, which is “one people, one clergy within the people, one primacy within the clergy” (cf. V. FORNARI, VITO, Della vita di Gesù Cristo, book 3), as it is built up, expands through the work of its hierarchy, which is like a sphere whose center is the Pope, whose rays are the bishops, which, though extending toward the surface, never cease to converge upon the center of unity. Yet what impels both the movement of expansion and that of unification—the two movements of every living organism—is the priestly power that consecrates the Eucharist. According to the law of its institution, the hierarchy, from top to bottom, from the Supreme Pontiff to the door-keeper, in all its ramifications and in all its grades, converges toward the building up of the mystical Body through the Eucharist, the fruit of the priest’s consecrated words.
2. Grace
The grace of Holy Orders is like the final touch that assimilates the soul to Christ, communicating to it the divine features of the Eternal Priest.To sanctifying grace is added sacramental grace, which orients the entire supernatural organism toward the end of this sacrament, perfecting the virtues and “professional” gifts (religion for worship, prudence for governance, wisdom for teaching), of which sanctifying grace had planted the seeds in the soul.
To this retinue of virtues corresponds a right to special aids from actual grace, which activates them at the opportune moment.
Through such an invigoration of supernatural faculties, the priest is rendered fit to perform meritorious acts that increase the common treasury of supernatural goods, making their circulation easier (cf. St. Albert the Great, De Eucharistia, dist. 3, cap. 4).
VI. CONCLUSION
The positive documents of Scripture and Tradition demonstrate that ancient Protestantism (based on the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli; cf. A. Michel [V. BIBLICA.], cols. 1333-46, and L. Cristiani, Réforme, in DThC, XIII, II, cols. 2087-92), modern Protestantism (based on the theories of liberals and rationalists; cf. F. Ruffini [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 1-5; J. Coppens [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 110-20; Michel [V. BIBLICA.], cols. 1193-98), is completely outside historical reality when it denies the divine origin of the sacrament of Holy Orders, the foundation of the hierarchical structure of Christianity, which the Church, with full right, defined at the Council of Trent (sess. XXIII: 15 July 1563). The essential points of the doctrine expounded are: 1) the direct institution of a visible priesthood (chap. 1 and can. 1; Denz.-U., 957 and 961); 2) divinely arranged in hierarchical order: bishops, priests, ministers (chap. 2, can. 6: ibid., 958 and 966); 3) to be transmitted by bishops, who are superior to priests, having the exclusive power to ordain (chap. 4; can. 7: ibid., 960 and 967); 4) through a rite truly sacramental (chap. 3, can. 3-5: ibid., 959 and 963-65); 5) which imprints the character and produces grace (chap. 3, can. 4: ibid., 959-64). On this dogmatic foundation rest the papal documents on the priesthood: Pius X, exhortation Haerent animo (1908); Pius XI, encyclical Ad catholici sacerdotii (1935); Pius XII, exhortation Menti nostrae (1951).ORDER AND HOLY ORDERS
ORDER and HOLY ORDERS — Priestly Ordination, painting by G. M. Crespi (17th c.) — Dresden, Picture Gallery.
If a candidate is not to be ordained at the legitimate time or is absent from the diocese, or belongs to a different rite, or because of a vacant see, provided that these circumstances are not sought or anticipated deceitfully (can. 967), the religious superior may submit the resignation to any bishop of the same rite who is in communion with the Apostolic See, accompanied by an authentic document from the competent diocesan curia attesting to one of the aforementioned conditions (can. 966). To act knowingly and willingly against the foregoing norms constitutes a delict punishable by suspension from celebrating Mass (can. 2410). Non-exempt religious are equated with secular clergy regarding ordinations (can. 964). Clerics ordained by the Roman Pontiff cannot be elevated to a higher order without the authorization of the Holy See (can. 952).
ORDER and HOLY ORDERS — Priestly Ordination, painting by G. M. Crespi (17th c.) — Dresden, Picture Gallery.
II. SUBJECT OF ORDINATION
The subject of ordination is the person who can receive II. For validity, it is required that the candidate be of the male sex (by divine right, a woman is incapable of receiving sacred orders; the offices entrusted to deaconesses [v.] did not involve any power of ordination); and that he be baptized, since only Baptism (of water) opens the door to the other Sacraments (can. 968 § 1). In the case of adults, the intention, at least virtual, and the completely free will are also required, that is, not imposed by others. The ordination of infants, strictly speaking, is valid (in past times, some cases occurred); but with regard to the obligations of celibacy and other burdens, those who had been ordained as infants, upon reaching the age of sixteen, were required to declare before the authority whether they intended to remain in the order received or not (const. *Eo quamvis* of Benedict XIV, 4 March 1745).
A cleric who had received sacred orders under grave and unjust fear may, once the cause of fear has ceased, ratify the order, even if only tacitly by the free exercise of the order, intending to accept the obligations inherent to it; if he does not wish to do so, he must prove juridically the coercion suffered so that the ecclesiastical judge may restore him to the lay state without any obligation of celibacy or other burdens (can. 214 and *Regulae servandae*, S. Congr. de Sacram., 9 June 1931: AAS, 23 [1931], pp. 457 ff.). It is illicit to compel a reluctant individual to receive sacred orders or to dissuade him if he is suitable (can. 971, 972 § 2, 976, 2352).
For the liceity of ordination, the candidate, in addition to the absence of any irregularity or impediment ([v.] cf. also can. 968 § 2 and 2374), must demonstrate that he has a divine and canonical vocation (v.) (can. 968 § 1, 1353), to the judgment of the bishop (who must form a positive certainty of suitability: can. 973 § 3), and the will to ascend gradually to the subsequent orders up to the presbyterate (can. 973). However, once ordained, the candidate cannot be compelled to receive the other orders nor can he be hindered in their exercise (can. 973 § 2). The candidate must also have a moral conduct befitting the order he intends to receive (can. 974 § 1, n. 2), especially with regard to chastity, so that one could not be deemed suitable for the priesthood if he were accustomed to commit sins contrary to this virtue, unless after a long and serious period of probation. He must have the canonical age: 21 years for the subdiaconate, 22 for the diaconate, 24 for the presbyterate (can. 975; cf. also can. 2374); the requisite knowledge (can. 974 § 1, n. 4); tonsure cannot be conferred before the beginning of the theological course, the subdiaconate before the end of the third year, the diaconate not before the beginning of the fourth, and the presbyterate only after the first half of the fourth year. Theological studies are not valid if undertaken privately and if not preceded by a regular course of literary and philosophical studies (can. 976; cf. also can. 1365); the candidate must undergo examinations before the diocesan bishop or examiners chosen by him (v.). The orders are received progressively, so that one cannot receive an order who has not received the preceding ones (can. 977); and between the orders themselves, intervals or interstices (v.) must elapse as established in can. 978. An Oriental who, by apostolic indult, is authorized to receive the higher orders in the Latin rite must first receive those orders which, according to the Oriental rite, he has not received (can. 1004).
For ordination, it is necessary to approach it in the state of grace; but under pain of grave sin and sacrilege only for those orders which are certainly Sacraments, namely, the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate. It is also required that the candidate be confirmed (can. 974 § 1, n. 1), though it is not certain whether this is under grave obligation. The bishop, moreover, must not ordain except those whom he deems necessary or useful for the diocese or destined for another diocese (can. 969 § 1-2). Regarding the canonical title required for ordination, see the title of ORDINATION; for the particulars required for ORDINATION and the burdens assumed with it, see DEACON; PRESBYTERATE; SUBDIACONATE; TONSURE; BISHOP.
III. PREPARATION FOR ORDERS
This preparation is remote and proximate.
a) Remote preparation consists in the proper spiritual and intellectual formation to gradually instill in the future minister of the sanctuary the virtues and conditions necessary for the ecclesiastical state: for secular clergy, residence in the seminary from an early age and at least throughout the theological course is required (can. 972 § 1). Exceptions and dispensations, if possible (can. 972), are increasingly rare in practice; for religious, the novitiate (v.) is required, residence in houses of study and spiritual formation (can. 542 ff.; 587-89), and, if they are to receive sacred orders, perpetual profession (can. 964, n. 3).
b) Proximate preparation consists in preceding the orders with a course of spiritual exercises (for religious in their own house or another; for candidates of the secular clergy in the seminary or a religious house [can. 1001 § 3]) of at least three days for tonsure and minor orders, and at least six days for major orders (can. 1001 § 1), a course which must be repeated if the ordination is deferred for more than six months (can. 1001 § 2). Candidates, whether secular or non-exempt religious, must present or make a request for ordination (can. 992); they must then present certain certificates: for tonsure, certificates of Baptism and Confirmation (can. 993 n. 1); for each order, a certificate of the previous ordination, of studies completed, and of good conduct issued by the rector of the seminary; testimonial letters from the bishop of the place where the candidate has resided for at least three months (can. 993, nn. 2-4; 994), and from the major superior if a religious (can. 993, n. 5). Exempt religious cannot be ordained without the dimissorial letters issued by the major superior (can. 964, n. 2). In these, even religious must attest to their membership in the religious family, the profession made, the studies undertaken, and the other matters mentioned above (can. 995 § 1).
Current law ordains that ordinations not proceed until the names of secular clerics (not regulars) to be promoted to orders have been published, by reading them in the parish church of their birthplace on feast days during solemn Mass or when there is a greater concourse of people, to allow anyone who knows of a canonical impediment to confide it to the bishop or the parish priest. The bishop may modify the manner of publication or even sometimes dispense from it entirely or in part (can. 998-1000; V. also INVESTIGATIONS).
IV. RITE, TIME, AND PLACE OF ORDINATION
The ordaining bishop is bound to observe the prescriptions regarding the rites and ceremonies imposed for each ordination in the Roman Pontifical and in other ritual books approved by the Church. The Mass of ordination and that of episcopal consecration must always be celebrated by the minister or ordaining bishop (can. 1003). Those who are to receive sacred orders must approach the holy Communion in the same Mass of ordination (can. 1005).
Sacred or major orders cannot be conferred except in the solemn Mass of the Ember Saturdays, that preceding Passion Sunday, and that of Holy Saturday; however, for a grave reason, the bishop may confer them on any Sunday or feast of precept (for the expositio, see below). The first tonsure may be conferred on any day and at any hour; minor orders only on Sundays and on feasts of double rite, always in the morning. Contrary customs are reprobated by the CIC (can. 1006 § 3) and therefore must be corrected.
Even if immemorial. The prescriptions regarding the time of Ordination must be observed even if, by apostolic indult, a Latin bishop ordains a cleric of the Eastern rite or vice versa (can. 1006 § 5). If any rite has been omitted, whether in absolute or conditional form, the bishop may supply it at any time and in secret (can. 1007 and declaration of the Commission for the Interpretation of the CIC, 15 May 1936). General Ordinations must be held in the cathedral church, in the presence of the canons; or, outside the episcopal city, in the most worthy church, in the presence of the local clergy (can. 1009 § 1). It is not, however, illicit, for a just cause, to hold particular Ordinations in other churches, in the private chapel of the bishop, in that of the seminary, or of a religious community (can. 1009 § 2).
The first tonsure and minor Orders may be conferred even in private oratories (can. 1009 § 3) or in the vicinity of the church. It is not lawful for a bishop (though it is for cardinals, with prior notice to the Ordinary if in the cathedral church: can. 239 § 1 n. 15) to ordain outside his own territory when the rite of Ordination is celebrated with a pontifical Mass (can. 1008). The names of the individual ordinands, the ordaining minister, the place and day of Ordination must be recorded in a special register (Liber ordinandorum); the documents presented by the ordinands must also be carefully preserved (can. 1010 § 1). Each of these must be given an authentic certificate of Ordination, which, in the case of Ordination by a foreign bishop, must be presented to the proper Ordinary so that he may record it in the Liber ordinandorum (can. 1010 § 2). The same entry must be made in the Liber baptizatorum if the subject is a subdeacon; and therefore the Ordinary, if the subject belongs to the secular clergy, or the major superior, if the subject is a religious ordained with his dimissorial letters, must notify the parish priest of the baptism of the ordained person (can. 1011).
V. CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS
By itself it is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff (can. 953), who, however, usually grants the necessary license to others. It can be lawfully performed only by a bishop who has received a special apostolic mandate (can. 953), and it is common teaching that not even the Pope can grant a simple priest the faculty to confer episcopal consecration. The consecrating bishop must be assisted by two other bishops and consecrators, unless a papal dispensation is obtained; without this, a single bishop would confer the consecration validly but illicitly. Episcopal consecration must be conferred on a Sunday or on the feast days of the Apostles (can. 1006 § 1).VI. NULLITY OF ORDINATION
I. General Concepts
When any of the objective or subjective conditions required for the validity of an Ordination are lacking (v. above), the effect of the Ordination is annulled: it is therefore invalid, and any obligations or burdens attached to it are null. It must be noted, however, that the validity of the Ordination may coexist with the nullity of the obligations, but not vice versa, as in the case of grave fear (can. 214) suffered by the subject at the time of ordination.The interest of the cleric or ecclesiastical authority in establishing the nullity of an Ordination may be twofold and divergent: either to provide for its validation and proceed to further Orders, in order to avoid a hiatus in their concatenation; or to withdraw from the clerical state and return to the lay state, exempt from the obligations arising from the Orders received, as well as from the privileges and prerogatives attached thereto. In the first case, however, to proceed to a new Ordination, at least conditional, no apodictic proof of nullity is required; a positive and prudent doubt, as such ascertained by the diocesan Ordinary, is sufficient. In the second case, on the other hand, the invalidity must be established with moral certainty, following an appropriate procedure.
3. Proof of the Nullity of Ordination or of the Obligations
In current legislation, the practical importance of proving the nullity of an Ordination is almost exclusively confined to the presbyterate. Thus, except in exceptional cases, no one has an interest in proving the nullity of the first tonsure or minor Orders, since, even if their validity or invalidity remains undecided, the return of the minor cleric to the lay state presents no difficulty, being left, among other things, to his own simple will (can. 211 § 2): it is clear that he will thereby lose offices, benefices, rights and clerical privileges, with the prohibition of wearing ecclesiastical dress and of bearing the tonsure. Similarly, this may be affirmed of subdeacons and deacons. Even before the CIC, they could be reduced to the lay state by rescript of the Holy See with dispensation from all the obligations involved, including celibacy; and this must be affirmed a fortiori today, when a just and grave cause exists, following the issuance of two parallel Instructions of 27 Dec. 1930 (AAS, 23 [1931], p. 120 ff.) and 10 Dec. 1931 (ibid., 24 [1932], p. 74 ff.) by the Sacred Congregations of the Sacraments and of Religious, respectively, for subdeacons and deacons within their competence: an appropriate clause, however, inserted in the rescript, prevents their readmission to their former state.The secularization of the priesthood can be regulated by a twofold canonical provision, depending on whether it is incomplete or complete. When a priest fails in the most exalted duties of his office without hope of amendment, and the continued exercise of his sacred ministry would bring more harm than edification and profit to the faithful; or when, due to invincible repugnance, he is found unfit for fruitful ministry, he must or can be reduced to the lay state with dispensation from his obligations, save for the obligation of celibacy; in addition to the case of degradation, a common penalty for priests and clerics in sacred orders (can. 211 § 1) who have committed grave fault (in this case, the obligation of celibacy always remains). To obtain, however, complete secularization with exemption from all obligations, including celibacy, it is necessary that the priest demonstrate either the nullity of the ordination he received or the nullity of the obligations inherent to it: and this through the institution of a specific cause against the validity of the former or the latter. Ordinarily, such a process is initiated either for lack of intention (simulation) in the subject or for some mental defect that vitiates the consent given to the ordination received. The validity of the obligations, on the other hand, can be challenged only on the grounds of grave fear imposed from without (can. 214), which rendered the acceptance of the obligations coerced.
4. Canonical procedure for the declaration of nullity
Before the CIC, the handling of these causes was regulated by the constitution of Benedict XIV *Si datam* of March 4, 1748; the CIC outlines the procedure in canons 1993–98, which prescribe a twofold form: the strictly judicial form, with a double conforming sentence and appeal governed by the norms of nullity-of-marriage processes; and the economical or disciplinary form. Nevertheless, to expedite and secure the handling of such causes, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments issued on June 9, 1931 (AAS, 23 [1931], pp. 457ff.) the *Regulae servandae* in such processes, in which the economical processual form is ordinarily established; though the judicial form is not thereby entirely excluded, and may in some cases be prescribed by the Congregation.The competent tribunal for these causes is established by can. 1993: namely, it falls to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments to judge those in which the obligations contracted with ordination or the validity of the ordination itself are challenged; whereas those in which the validity of ordination is challenged for substantial defect of rite are reserved to the Holy Office. No inferior judge is competent to instruct such processes unless he is furnished with apostolic faculties. Moreover, by reason of the nature of the offense committed, causes falling within the competence of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments are also reserved to the Holy Office when the priest promoting them has contracted what is called a civil marriage; though the Holy Office, once it has ascertained its competence, usually entrusts the instruction and decision of such causes to the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.
The procedural order for causes within the competence of this dicastery is as follows:
The sacred ordination can be challenged for nullity indifferently by the priest concerned or by the Ordinary under whom he is subject or in whose diocese he was ordained. The declaration of nullity of the obligations, however, can be invoked only by the priest who believes he has not validly contracted them.
The introductory libellus, directed to the Holy Father but transmitted to the competent Congregation, must contain a complete and accurate statement of the facts and the grounds that may lead to a conclusion of nullity, with indication of the date and place of origin or residence of the petitioner, and must be signed by him. Normally the libellus is transmitted to the Holy See through the Ordinary, who will be that of the diocese in which the petitioner is incardinated, or, if he is a dismissed religious, the Ordinary of the diocese of origin or domicile; it may, however, be sent directly to the Holy See by the petitioner.
Upon receipt of the libellus, the Congregation instructs the Ordinary to conduct a preliminary, extrajudicial, and secret inquiry into the matters therein set forth; and if the petition appears not unfounded, the Congregation sends the Ordinary a letter of delegation to instruct the cause based on the following doubts: 1) Whether it is established that the sacred ordination is null in the case; and, if the answer is negative, 2) Whether it is at least established that there was grave fear and a defect of ratification, so that, in accordance with can. 214 of the CIC, the petitioner must be reduced to the lay state without any obligations of celibacy or of the canonical hours.
Once the process is completed, the acts must be sent in copy to the Congregation, together with the Ordinary’s *votum pro rei veritate*, unless the Ordinary has acted as judge; the decision is reserved to the Sacred Congregation.
As a first precaution (can. 1997), as soon as the judicial action is instituted—even if it concerns only the nullity of the obligations—the petitioner must, for caution’s sake, be interdicted from the exercise of orders. Another precaution commonly taken by the Congregation is to require the petitioner, before the process is constituted and by sworn declaration, in the event of a favorable outcome, not to reside or travel for any reason to places where his condition as a priest is known, and especially not to his native country, under pain of excommunication; the execution of the apostolic rescript of dispensation or declaration of freedom from obligations is made dependent upon fulfillment of this condition.
The *Regulae* lay down the norms for the constitution of the tribunal, specify the judge’s office, regulate the examination of the petitioner and witnesses, the collection of documents, indications, and presumptions; the manner of proving the lack of ratification of the orders by the petitioner; the physical examination of the latter, when necessary; and conclude with the conclusion of the process and the order for dispatch of the acts to the Congregation. Special emphasis is placed on the fact that these causes are handled *ex officio*, both at the diocesan curia and at the Congregation, which usually proceeds by means of the votes of special consultors; the wording *ex officio* excludes the intervention of advocates and procurators in the cause. Should the acts received by the Congregation reveal that the procedure was not observed, or that the process is defective or presents difficulties that can be remedied by further instruction, the Congregation will see to it *ex officio*; if everything is in order, the acts will proceed further, and the consultors will write not only in defense of the sacred ordination or of the obligations, but also *pro rei veritate*, or from both perspectives as the case may require.
The organs entrusted with rendering the decision are either the plenary Congregation of the cardinals forming part of the Sacred Dicastery or a special commission of consultors constituted for the purpose. As is obvious, the decision is contained in the response to the two aforementioned doubts: if it is affirmative to the first, the ordination will be considered null, and the response to the second is therefore superfluous; if, however, it is negative to the first and affirmative to the second, only the obligations will be considered null.
Since, however, the grave fear referred to in the second doubt is ordinarily difficult to prove in an external forum, as Gasparri already warned, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, competent in such causes before the CIC, used to respond, for greater security, that the petitioner should approach the Pontiff for dispensation; a procedure that is still followed today. Affirmative decisions, whether to the first or the second doubt, are always reported to the Holy Father in audience, and the communication is made to the interested parties through the respective Ordinary by means of the apostolic rescript, which contains the conditions and clauses governing its execution.
**I. General Notions**
It is established by can. 1972: “Clerics in sacris invalidly attempt marriage.” Therefore, the impediment of ordination is a true inability to contract marriage, which does not cease, in itself, even with the penalty of deposition, degradation, or reduction to the lay state, and directly concerns the marriage to be contracted, and indirectly the lawful use of a marriage that may have been contracted before ordination.
For the aforementioned impediment to take effect, it is required that someone has received major orders (minor clerics, by the provision of can. 132 § 2, in case of marriage, ipso iure lose the clerical state); that the ordination was freely received (hence, any inability ceases in cases of coercion or lack of ratification as per can. 214, if lawfully proven: can. 1998 § 1); and that the ordination itself was received with knowledge of the most grave obligation of celibacy.
**2. Juridical Foundation of the Impediment**
Since marriage is not, by its nature, incompatible with the clerical state, the impediment of ordination does not derive from divine law, but solely from ecclesiastical law, as clearly demonstrated by the Church’s tolerance in the early centuries, the practice of the Eastern Church, and the fact that the Church can dispense from II. It remains, however, controversial whether the obligation of celibacy derives immediately from ecclesiastical law or from a vow, or from both.
**5. Historical Notes**
a) For the Western Church. — When, at the time of the Gregorian Reform, many writers (cf. St. Peter Damian, De coelibatu sacerdotum: PL 145, 380; id., Secunda dissertatio contra clericos intemperantes: PL 145, 408, etc.) and, after the decrees of the Roman Council of 1049, popes—especially Gregory VII—had considered the marriages of priests null (v. CELIBATE), celibacy in the Western Church appears officially and clearly as a diriment impediment at the beginning of the 12th century, in the Second Lateran Council (a. 1123), which in can. 21 thus decreed: “We absolutely forbid presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons to have concubines or to contract marriages; and we declare that marriages already contracted by such persons are to be dissolved... according to the definition of sacred canons” (Mansi, XXI, col. 286). This was confirmed by the Third Lateran Council (a. 1139), which some authors consider to have been the first to bind in this regard. In the aforementioned Council, while can. 6 punishes with deprivation of office and ecclesiastical benefice a subdeacon who has taken a wife or keeps a concubine, as being unworthy of those who are “temple of God, vessels of the Lord, temples of the Holy Spirit” (Mansi, XXI, col. 528), can. 7 forbids listening to Mass celebrated by married or concubinarian priests and establishes: “We decree that bishops, presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons who dare to take wives to themselves be separated. For we judge that such unions, contracted contrary to ecclesiastical rule, are not to be considered marriage” (ibid.). And ever more clearly, the decretals of the Roman pontiffs from Alexander III (c. 4, III, 3) to Gregory IX deny any validity to such marriages.
From this it appears how rightly was condemned, as historically false, proposition 72 of the Syllabus of Pius IX, which traced the origin of the impediment of ordination solely to Boniface VIII (Denz.-U. 1772). Finally, the Council of Trent defined dogmatically: “If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred orders can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid despite the ecclesiastical law... let him be anathema” (sess. XXIV, can. 9, Denz.-U. 979).
b) For the Eastern Church. — It must first be observed that in the Eastern Church there is no law uniformly valid for all; rather, the prescriptions of individual rites must be considered. Generally, however, it can be affirmed that the fundamental law of the Eastern Church is still the Council in Trullo (a. 692), which, while allowing married men to be promoted to subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood, prescribes “that subdeacons who handle sacred mysteries, and deacons and presbyters, abstain from their spouses according to their proper terms” (can. 13; Mansi, XI, 948; cf. also ibid., can. 6, 12, 48; Mansi, XI, 944 ff., 965). After ordination, however, it is no longer permitted for subdeacons, deacons, priests, and a fortiori for bishops, to contract marriage (Benedict XIV, const. Anno vertente, 19 June 1750, § 13; and can. 6 of the Council in Trullo: Mansi, XI, 944). The invalidity of such marriages is not, however, certain; indeed, contrary to what is commonly thought by authors, Bobak (op. cit. in bibl., pp. 147 ff.) has demonstrated that it is an error to cite the Council in Trullo and the legislation of Justinian (Novella VI, 1) as irritant laws for the marriages of clerics in sacris of the Eastern Church. Moreover, Benedict XIV, while admitting that such marriages are illicit by virtue of the Council in Trullo, asserts that their invalidity is not sanctioned. The invalidity of marriages of Italo-Greeks is, however, explicitly sanctioned (Benedict XIV, const. Esti pastoralis of 16 March 1742, § 8, n. 27).
**4. Dispensation**
That the impediment of ordination is dispensable depends on the fact that it derives from ecclesiastical law. The power to dispense—by ordinary authority—belongs solely to the Supreme Pontiff, who has never used it in the case of bishops; he has exceptionally used it, for reasons of public order, in the case of priests; rarely in the case of deacons, and with somewhat greater frequency in the case of subdeacons.
Historically, two cases of general dispensations are certain: one granted for a cause of public order under Julius II in 1554, concerning all English priests who had attempted marriage before the restoration of Queen Mary, to induce the English more easily to return to the Catholic Church; and the other granted for the religious pacification of France under the pontificate of Pius VII on 15 August 1801, which benefited two thousand priests (the same Pontiff, however, refused to validate the marriage of Prince Talleyrand, already Bishop of Autun). In danger of death, Ordinaries, confessors, and parish priests may also dispense, but only for diaconate and subdiaconate, for the reasons provided in can. 1043–45 of the CIC (v. CASE; DANGER OF DEATH). Although no longer, as ancient authors held, a public cause is required, a cause—albeit private—proportionate to the gravity of the law from which dispensation is granted is always necessary. Once dispensation is granted, a cleric reduced to the lay state can no longer exercise orders.
6. Penalties
Those who contravene ecclesiastical discipline in so grave a matter are liable to severe sanctions: 1) latae sententiae excommunication, simpliciter reserved to the Apostolic See both for clerics in sacred orders and for the person with whom they attempt marriage, even only civil (can. 2388 § 1). Since, however, the cited canon requires deliberate will to violate the law (praesumentes), can. 2229 § 2 applies and therefore any diminution of imputability, through lack of advertence or consent, excuses from the latae sententiae penalty; 2) ipso facto loss of all offices (can. 188 § 5); 3) irregularity ex delicto (can. 985 § 3); 4) degradation, if the guilty parties do not repent within a fixed time; 5) moreover, clerics incur suspicion of heresy, since they in fact show that they consider their marriage valid. Absolution from the above excommunication is reserved to the Sacred Penitentiary, which on 4 May 1937 issued a declaration to the effect that this excommunication does not fall under the urgent cases mentioned in can. 2254 § 1 (AAS, 29 [1937], p. 283); this applies to every person, even a cardinal, unless, of course, the Sacred Penitentiary has granted a special faculty. If absolution were given in danger of death, recourse must be had to the same Sacred Tribunal, as laid down for censures specially and most strictly reserved to the Holy See, in accordance with can. 2252 (AAS, 28 [1936], p. 242).7. The impediment of Orders and civil legislation
Modern civil codes, with few exceptions, completely ignore the impediment of Orders (it is a diriment impediment in Austria and Spain). In Italy too, even after the Concordat of 1929, the Civil Code does not list as an impediment to civil marriage either Orders or the solemn vow of chastity. Some Italian jurists and canonists nevertheless hold that a cleric in sacred orders cannot, under the Concordat regime, contract civil marriage unless he has first obtained from the Holy See a dispensation from the impediment.Innocenzo Parisella III. THE LITURGICAL RITES OF ORDINATION
I. For the rites of Ordination in the Latin liturgy see the entries: ACOLYTE; DEACON; EXORCIST, EXORCISM; LECTOR; OSTIARY; PRIEST; SUBDEACON; BISHOP. See also the entries: ORDINES ROMANI; PONTIFICAL; SACRAMENTARY; TONSURE.
8. IN THE EASTERN LITURGIES
Theologically a distinction is drawn between ecclesiastical promotion and dignity (e.g., archdeaconate, chorepiscopate) and sacred Orders, and with regard to the latter between minor and major Orders. Liturgically these distinctions are not always marked by a different ritual gesture, although in general the laying on of hands is excluded for minor Orders (yet in the Chaldean rite it takes place for the ordination of the lector and subdeacon; in the Armenian rite for that of the subdeacon; in the Syriac, Maronite and Coptic rites the bishop touches the temples in minor ordinations); the formulae, however, always indicate which Order is being conferred. The higher the hierarchical grade conferred, the more solemn the liturgical ceremony becomes. Not infrequently a proclamation is made indicating that a certain deacon, priest, etc., is being ordained for such-and-such a church in such-and-such a place. In antiquity the only ritual gesture was the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14 and 5:22, 2 Tim 1:6); in the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus the consent of the assembly precedes and the laying on of hands is accompanied by a single prayer and followed by the kiss of peace, which is also that of the Mass that continues immediately with the Offertory and Preface (ed. B. Botte, Paris 1946, p. 27); in Const. Apost. 8.4.2 (ed. F. Funk, p. 475) interrogations about the person of the consecrating bishop precede, besides the laying on of hands the Gospel is also imposed, the Mass follows, but the introduction and embrace take place on the next day. Even today, in almost all ordinations of every rite, a fundamental pattern is found: a proclamation with the formula: Divina gratia quae semper supplet defectus nostros..., the laying on of hands (and for the bishop of the Gospel) with prayer, the vesting with the sacred vestments proper to the new Order received, and the fraternal embrace.This simplicity has been best preserved in the Byzantine rite, but instead of one prayer with the laying on of hands there are two; it should be noted that this gesture accompanies also the proclamation: Divina gratia... in such a way that not a few, perhaps wrongly, have considered this proclamation as the essential rite of the Order conferred. The Ruthenians have introduced the traditio instrumentorum. Hymns and sometimes a short office, with lessons and psalms, accompany Armenian ordinations; in these the laying on of hands is repeated and the traditio instrumentorum was accepted even by the dissenters. In the Syriac rite a first office is foreseen (hymn, sedro, incensations, lessons), followed by a thanksgiving prayer and before the laying on of hands the bishop passes his hands three times from the consecrated gifts placed on the altar (the Order is conferred at the Communion of the Holy Mass) to the head of the ordinand. The Maronites use various formularies, still in manuscript, and multiply prayers and laying on of hands. In the Chaldean rite several prayers, even poetic compositions, precede, but the ancient usage of one prayer with one laying on of hands has been preserved. Among the Malabarese the Roman Pontifical is used in Latin. In the Coptic rite, as also in the Ethiopian, the bishop places his fingers on the temples of those receiving minor Orders. In every rite the prayers and chants are rich in doctrine, especially regarding the relations between Christ and the Church; the fundamental idea is that of an infusion of the grace of the Holy Spirit to render the ordained fit for his sacred ministry. — See pl. XI.
BIBL.:
H. Denzinger, *Ritus Orientalium*, II, Würzburg 1864 (Latin version for all rites except the Byzantine; reports the works of his predecessors: Morinus, Assemani, Renaudot, etc.); the Greek text of the Byzantine rite in *Ecclesia*, Rome 1873, pp. 129–40 (French version in Merceneri-Paris, *La prière des Églises de la vie byzantine*, I, Chevetogne 1947, pp. 367–80); A. Dmitrievskii, *Stavennik*, Kiev 1904, pp. 41–80 (in Russian); A. Neselovskii, *Čini khirotesii i khirtonii*, Kamenetz-Podolsk 1906 (historical study); J. M. Hanssens, *La forme sacramentelle dans les ordinations sacerdotales de rite grec*, in *Gregorianum*, 5 (1924), pp. 208–77; 6 (1925), pp. 41–80; M. Blondeel, *Les ordinations chez les Méthites*, Harissa 1946 (Greek text, Arabic, French version and explanation); P. de Meester, *Studi sui Sacramenti*, Rome 1947, pp. 241–74; F. C. Conybeare, *Rituale Armenorum*, Oxford 1905, pp. 228–42 (English version of the ordination of the reader, subdeacon, deacon and priest according to ancient documents); *Liturgia della Messa armena*, Italian trans., Venice 1938, pp. 72–80 (from the rite of the ordination of the deacon and priest, abridged); I. Graffin, *Ordination du prêtre dans le rite jacobite*, in *Revue de l’Orient chrétien*, 1 (1896), pp. 1–36 (text of ms. Syr. 112 of the Bibl. Nat. of Paris with translation); F. Nau, *Une profession de foi jacobite*, in *Rev. Or. chrétien*, 17 (1912), pp. 324–27 (from the same ms. Paris 112 of the year 1230); Fr. Dunkel, *Eine syrisch-jakobitische Bischofsreiche in Jerusalem*, in *Das heilige Land*, 71 (1927), pp. 94–101 (description of an eyewitness text). Alfonso Raes