Holy Orders Chapter II: Division of Orders

Chapter II: Division of Orders

CHAPTER II DIVISION OF ORDERS There are eight different orders : bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter or door-keeper (ostiariits) . All these are expressly mentioned by the Fourth Council of Carthage (398). The five lowest are of ecclesiastical institution and therefore not Sacraments. The higher three, called hierarchical orders, were instituted by our Lord Himself, and therefore at least one of them must be a true Sacrament because ordination is a true Sacrament. Which one, is a question that remains to be examined. The dogmatic teaching of the Tridentine Council on Holy Orders is as follows : (1) “Besides the priesthood, there are in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and smaller, by which, as by certain steps, entry is made unto the priesthood.” 1 (2) “In the Catholic Church there is a hierarchy, instituted by divine ordination, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers.,, 2 (3) “Order, or sacred ordination, is truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ.” 3 lSess. XXIII, can. a. 8 Sess. XXIII, can. 3. 2 Seas. XXIII. can. 6. 78 the Different orders 79 (4) Bishops are superior to, and have greater power than, priests.4 We shall, therefore, treat first of the Episcopate (Sect. 1), second, of the Priesthood (Sect. 2), third, of the Diaconate (Sect. 3), and fourth, of the Subdiaconate and the Four Minor Orders (Sect. 4). 4Sess. XXIII, can. 7. SECTION i THE EPISCOPATE The Tridentine Council defines ( I ) that “bishops are superior to priests/’ and (2) that “they have the power of confirming and ordaining.” That episcopal consecration is a true Sacrament follows as a theological conclusion. Thesis I: The episcopate is, by divine institution, an order distinct from, and superior to, the priesthood. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. The divine institution of the episcopate and its superiority to the priesthood were denied by Aerius in the fourth century, by Marsilius of Padua in the fourteenth,1 and by the followers of Wiclif and Hus in the fifteenth.2 Against these later heretics the Council of Trent defined: “If anyone saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathema.” 8 And: “If anyone saith 1 Cfr. Denzinger Bannwart, n. 498. Hone institutam, quae constat ex 2 Ibid., n. 675. episcopis, presbyteris et ministris, 8 Sess. XXIII, can. 6: “Si quis anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Banndixerit, in Ecclesia catholica non wart, n. 966), esse hierarchiam divm& ordina. So THE EPISCOPATE 8r that bishops are not superior to priests, … let him be anathema.” 4 The Council does not expressly say that the superiority of the episcopate over the priesthood is divinely instituted, but this proposition is deducible from the nature of the episcopal faculties, especially that of giving confirmation and ordination.5 a) The hierarchic distinction of the episcopate and its superiority as compared to the priesthood cannot be proved from the name e pise opus (imaKOTros) f because the terms MaKioimi irpeafivrepos, and Suikovos are used loosely and oftentimes synonymously in the New Testament.6 A convincing argument for the dogmatic teaching of the Church can, however, be drawn from the functions attributed to the episcopal office. Franzelin attempts to show 7 that while the bishops were sometimes called irpco/Mrqxu, simple priests were never called iirlaKOTToi. But the argument is not entirely conclusive, as usage varied in the primitive Church.8 The functions attributed to bishops are a much better criterion. The pastoral letters of St. Paul show that some of the disciples ordained by the Apostles exercised precisely those prerogatives by which the episcopate is distinguished from the priesthood, i. e. the power of ordaining priests and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus Barnabas ordained 4 Sess. XXIII, can. 7: “Si quis 7 De Ecclesia Christi, thes. 16, 2nd dixerit, episcopos non esse presby- ed., Rome 1907. teris superiores, … anathema sit.” 8 Cfr. H. Bruders, S.J., Die 5 V, infra, Thesis II. Verfassung der Kirche bis sum 6 Cfr. 1 Cor. Ill, 5; 2 John 1; Jahre 175 > Christus, pp. 360 sqq., 1 Pet. V, 1. Mayence 1904. priests ; 9 Titus was left for the same purpose in Crete ; 10 Timothy was admonished not to impose hands lightly,11 and so forth. It was the will of Christ that the power which He had given to His Apostles should be transferred by them to their successors; consequently the episcopate is divinely instituted. b) The episcopate is clearly marked in ancient Tradition as an independent, superior, and divinely instituted, monarchical office. Nothing can be deduced in favor of our thesis from the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the letters of Clement of Rome, because in these sub- Apostolic writings the term artraoiro?, which we found in the New Testament, has not yet narrowed down to its more specific meaning. But we have an important witness in St. Ignatius of Antioch (+117), who clearly distinguishes three orders in the hierarchy. He says in his Epistle to the Magnesians : ” I exhort you : — Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ. 12 He attributes the superiority of the episcopal order to the fact that there is but one bishop in each diocese. * Be careful, therefore,” he says, ” to use one Eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons.” 18 That the episcopate exists by divine ordination is taught in the same writ0 Acts XIV, 22. 12 Ad Magn., 6. 10 Tit. I, s sqq. 18 Ad Philad., 4. 11 1 Tim. Ill, 1 sqq.; V, 22. er’s Epistle to the Ephesians. ” The bishops,” he avers, “who have been appointed throughout the world, are by the will of Jesus Christ… . For every one whom the Master of the house sends to do his business, we ought to receive as Him who sent him. Therefore it is clear that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself.” 14 The testimony of St. Ignatius sufficiently refutes the assertion that the episcopate was but just springing into existence at the beginning of the second century. Bardenhewer sums up the argument from early Tradition as follows: ” Hegesippus,16 and soon after him Irenaeus,16 draw up a list of Roman bishops, beginning with the Apostles. The existence of the episcopate about the middle of the second century is proved by overwhelming and explicit testimony. For the beginning of the second century we have the authority of St. Ignatius, the very text of whose letters precludes the possibility of a forgery. We nowhere hear of hindrances or difficulties in the way of the episcopate, or of quarrels or combats between bishops and priests. The episcopate is invariably introduced as a traditional institution of acknowledged legitimacy, which needs no proof.” 17 Among the many later Patristic testimonies we will mention only the famous dictum of St. Cyprian that “The bishop is in the Church, and the Church is in the bishop, and if any one is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church.”18 14 Ad Ephes., Ill, 6. isCfr. Euaebius, Hist. Eccles., IV, 22, 3. 16 Adv. Hoer., Ill, 3. 17 Gesch. d. altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, p. 134, Freiburg 1902. 18 Ep., 66, 8: “Unde scire debts, episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si quis cum episcopo non sit, in ecclesia non esse.” (Cfr. Dc Augustinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. II, and cd., pp. 440 sqq.) 84 HOLY ORDERS Thesis II: The superiority of the episcopate over the priesthood is based mainly upon the power to confirm and ordain. This proposition may be qualified as “sententia certa!’ Proof. The Tridentine Council enumerates the following as specifically episcopal functions: “Bishops … administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, ordain the ministers of the Church, and can perform very many other things, over which functions others of an inferior order have no power.” 19 The same holy Synod pronounces anathema against “anyone who saith that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining, or that the power which they possess is common to them and priests.” 20 Consequently, the superiority of the episcopal over the sacerdotal office is based principally upon the power of confirming and ordaining. Since, however, the power of confirming can be granted to simple priests by papal dispensation,21 the really distinctive and unique prerogative of the bishop, so far as i9Scss. XXIII, cap. 4: “Epir tcopos sacramentum conHrmationis conferre, ministros Ecclesiae ordinate atque alia pleraque peragere ipsos posse, quorum functionum potestatern reliqui inferioris ordinis nullam habent.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 960). 20 Sess. XXIII, can. 7: “Si quis dixerit, episcopos non esse presby* teris superiores vel non habere potestatem con fir man di et ordinandi, vel earn quam habent Hits esse cum presbyteris communem, … anathema sit/* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 967). 21 V. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 310 sqq. the potestas ordinis is concerned, is his power to ordain priests. From this power spring all other episcopal prerogatives:— the bishop’s position as the divinely appointed head of his diocese 22 and the center of unity both in faith and discipline ; his character as a successor of the Apostles; his capacity of father of his priests and the faithful entrusted to their care; his right to represent his diocese at provincial, plenary, and ecumenical councils, etc.25 a) That bishops alone have the power to ordain priests is amply confirmed by Tradition. Aerius of Sebaste, an Arian priest, whose former friend and rival Eustathius had been raised to the episcopal dignity, maintained that bishops and priests were absolutely equal in all things. St. Epiphanius (+403), in his ” Medicine Chest,” commonly called ” Haereses,” refuted this contention as follows : ” What sense is there in that ? The order of bishops has for its chief purpose to produce new fathers, for its business is to propagate fathers in the Church. The other [i. e. the priesthood], unable to engender fathers, in the laver of regeneration brings forth sons of the Church, but not fathers and teachers. How would it be possible for [priests] to make other priests, as they have not the right to lay on hands? ” 24 St. John Chrysostom (+ 407) says : ” Between bishops and priests there is hardly any difference, … by the power of ordination alone are the former superior [to the latter], and only this they seem to have more than the presbyters.” 25 22Cfr. Acts XX, 28: “Spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere Ec* clesiam Dei.” 2Cfr. Berardi, De Episcopo, Bologna 1891. 24 De Haeres., 75, n. 3. 25 How. in I. Tim., 11. Ecclesiastical practice agreed with this teaching. History knows of no case in which the Church acknowledged the validity of higher orders when conferred by a simple priest When St Athanasius (+373) was accused of sacrilege for having permitted the consecrated chalice to be broken during a mass celebrated by a certain Ischyras, he proved that Ischyras had been invalidly ordained by the pseudo-bishop Colluthos, whereupon his enemies reluctantly dropped the charge, because “the hands of Colluthos were without authority.”2 “Whence is this presbyter Ischyras?” the Saint asks. “Who ordained him? Colluthos, perhaps? … But it is known to ail, and doubted by none, that Colluthos died as a presbyter, and his hands were without authority, and all ordained by him during the schism were sent back to the lay state.”27 b) A difficulty arises from certain utterances of St. Jerome (+420), who exalts the priesthood at the expense of the episcopate in such exaggerated terms that the Scotch Presbyterians boldly cite him as a witness to their non-prelatical form of church government. St. Jerome’s attitude must be judged in the light of his personal relations with Bishop John of Jerusalem and of the current practice of exalting the archdeacons at the expense of priests in the administration of Church affairs.28 The strangest passage in the Saint’s writings runs as follows: “Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia [. e. factiones] in religione fierent et diceretur in populis: Ego sunt Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autetn Cephae, communi presbyterorum 26 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 28 Cfr. Schwane, Dogmengeschich> menu, Vol. II, p. 260. tet Vol. II, 2nd ed„ pp. 851 qq.t 27 Apol. c. Arian., n. 12. Freiburg 1895. consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur… . Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subiectos, ita episcopi noverint se tnagis consuetudine quant dispositions dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maiores et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui quum haberet in potestate solum praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum iudicaret” 88 St. Jerome here has in view the potestas iurisdictionis rather than the potestas ordinis of bishops. He demands a more democratic administration of church affairs and greater power for the priesthood. But his chief complaint is directed against the usurpations of the deacons: ” Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut diaconos presbyteris, i. e. episcopis anteferret. Apostolus perspicue docet eosdem esse presbyteros quos episcopos… . Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est” 80 St. Jerome was undoubtedly justified in protesting against the arrogance of these deacons ; but he was wrong in belittling the episcopal office in favor of the priesthood. In spite of these utterances, however, Catholics have never suspected him of being a follower of Aerius. For he unequivocally admits that the bishops alone have the power to ordain,81 and his very assertion that the bishops are superior to priests “more through custom than by divine institution ” shows that at heart he believed in the divine institution of the episcopate.82 Thesis III: The rite of episcopal consecration is a true Sacrament. 2» In Tit., I, 5. « Cfr. Tixeront, History of DogoEp. ad Evangel., 146, n. 1. mas, Vol. II, pp. 335 sq., St. Louis 81 Ibid.: ” Quid enim facit §x- 1914; Billuart, De Sacramento Orceptd ordinatione episcopuss quod dinis, diss. 4, art 1, obj. 2; De Aupresbyter non faciat f ” (Mifne, gustinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. II, P. L., XXII, 1193) and ed.t pp. 449 sqq. This proposition embodies a theological conclusion. Proof. Scholastic writers disagree with regard to the sacramental character of episcopal consecration. Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Blessed Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas,33 Duns Scotus, and others deny, while William of Auxerre, Durandus, Paludanus, Navarrus, Cardinal Cajetan, and Gabriel Biel affirm it. The later Schoolmen, with the sole exception of Dominicus Soto, defended the affirmative view so vigorously that Peter Soto did not hesitate to say that it was “certa fide tenenda” 34 and Cardinal Bellarmine characterized it as ” certissima.” 36 To-day our thesis is universally accepted by Catholic divines as a conclusio theologica. The arguments in its favor are, indeed, quite convincing. a) That there is a Sacrament of Order was demonstrated above36 from St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy. Now, according to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the Apostle speaks in that Epistle of the ordination of bishops.37 Consequently, the ordination of bishops, or episcopal consecration, is a true Sacrament. 88 St Bonaventure, In Sent., IV, dist. 24, qu. 3; St. Thomas, Summa TheoL, Supplement., qu. 40, art. 5. UDe Instit. Sacerd., sect. 4. 85 De Ord., c. 5. 86 V. supra, Ch. 1, Sect 1. 8T 1 Tim. IV, ix sqq. St. John Chrysostom says: ” [St. Paul] here speaks’ not of presbyters, but of bishops; for the presbyters did not ordain the bishop.” 88 St. Thomas takes the same view. He says in his commentary on the second Epistle to Timothy : ” * Which is in thee by the imposition of my hands/ that is to say, by whom he was ordained a bishop, in which imposition of hands the grace of the Holy Ghost was given him.” 88 This argument cannot be shattered by the assertion that St. Paul, in imposing hands on Timothy, merely ordained him to the priesthood, and that the episcopal dignity was added later and is an entirely non-sacramental complement. Timothy had the power of ordaining bishops, and this power could not have come to him by a mere Apostolic command, but must have been based on the episcopal character, which is inseparably bound up with the Sacrament of Orders.40 If episcopal consecration were not a true Sacrament and if it did not imprint a character on the soul of the recipient, the hierarchic distinction between the episcopate and the priesthood could not be of divine institution. The Church can take away what she herself has given (e. g. the dignity of an abbot, ecclesiastical jurisdiction) ; but she cannot take away the power of conferring Holy Orders. An excommunicated bishop can ordain validly even against her will, whereas no ordinary priest can ordain even with papal permission. It follows that episcopal consecration imprints on the soul a sacramental character and is, therefore, a true Sacrament. b) The Fathers, whenever they treat of the 38 In I. Tim., IV, 14. 39 Expos, in II. Tim., cap. I, lect. 3: ” ’ Quae est in te per imposition mem monuum m ear urn ’ : a quo soil. ordinatus erat episcopus, in qua manus impositione data est ei gratia Spiritus sancti.” 40 V . supra, Ch. I, Sect. 3. No. 2. Sacrament of Holy Orders, have in mind principally episcopal consecration, because they regard the bishop as the priest par excellence. Cardinal Bellarmine says 41 that to deny the sacramentality of episcopal consecration would endanger the Patristic argument for the existence of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, because the Fathers as a rule base their discussion of the subject on this rite. Nor is there any lack of express testimony in support of our thesis. St. Augustine, for instance, says concerning the readmission of the Donatistic bishops : ” The Baptism they give is not theirs, but Christ’s. The invocation made upon their heads when they were consecrated bishops is the invocation of God, not of Donatus. I do not receive him as a bishop upon whose head, at ordination, Donatus was invoked. In an erring and deserting soldier the c^ime is his own, whereas the character is that of the emperor.”42 c) The Tridentine Council proves the existence of the Sacrament of Holy Orders from the consecration of Timothy at the hands of St. Paul. The Council says: ”Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, … it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, … no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of holy 41 De Ord., c. 5. 42 Serm. ad Caesar. Eccl. Plebem, n. 2 (Migne, P. L., XLIII, 691): ” BapHsmus non est ipsorum, sed Christi. Invocatio nominis super caput ipsorum, quando ordinantur episcopi, invocatio ilia Dei est, non Donati. Non eum suscipio episcopum, si quando est ordinatus, super caput eius Donatus est invocatus. In errante ef deserente milite crimen est desertoris, character autem non est desertoris, sed imperatoris.” — Other testimonies quoted by Bellarmine, De Ord., c 3 and 5. THE EPISCOPATE 9i Church; for the Apostle says: ‘I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.” 48 Immediately afterward the holy Synod declares that ” bishops … principally belong to this hierarchical order,” and that ” they are superior to priests.”44 Whence we may argue: As ordination to the priesthood is a Sacrament,45 consecration to the episcopate must be a Sacrament a fortiori. This argument derives force from the fact that the Council pronounces anathema against those who maintain that “vainly do the bishops say [at ordination] : ’ Receive ye the Holy Ghost/“46 d) The objections of certain Scholastics can be easily refuted, nay, to some extent turned against their own position. Their principal argument may be stated thus: All orders are directed towards the Holy Eucharist as their goal and exist for its sake. Now, since the bishop’s power over the Body of Christ does not exceed that of the priest, he receives no new character with regard to the Eucharist, and therefore episcopal consecration is not a Sacrament.47 43Sess. XXIII, cap. 3: ” Quum Scripturae testimonio . . • perspicuum sit, per s a cram ordinationem … gratiam conferri, dnbitare nemo debet, ordinem esse vere et proprie unum ex septem sacratnentis; inquit enim Apostolus: Admoneo te, ut resuecites gratiam/’ etc. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 959). 44 Ibid., cap. 4: * Episcopos ad hunc hierarchicum ordinem praecipue pertinere … eosque presbyteris su» periores esse.* (Denzinger-Bannwit, n. 960), 45 V. supra, Sect. 2. 4eSes». XXIII, can. 4.— Cfr. £. Furtner, Das VerhQltnis der Bischofsweihe sum hi. Sakrament des Or do, Munich 1861. 47 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa TheoL, SuppL, qn. 40, art. 5 : ” Ordo potest accipi dupliciter. Uno mo do, secundum quod est sacr amentum, et sic or din at ur omnis ordo ad Eucharist iae sacramentum. Unde quum episcopus non habeat potestatem superiorem sac er dote, quantum ad hoc episcopal** non nit ordo,” 92 HOLY ORDERS Answer. The premise upon which this argument rests is open to dispute. But even if it were sound, we could retort that the bishop actually has greater power with regard to the Eucharist than the priest, because he can communicate the power of consecration to others. Another objection of the early Schoolmen was this: No order can be truly sacramental that is so dependent upon another that the omission of one renders the other invalid. If episcopal consecration imprinted the sacramental character, a deacon could be raised to the episcopate without having first been ordained to the priesthood. But such proceeding would be invalid. Hence the episcopal consecration is not a Sacrament. Answer. Whether a deacon could be validly consecrated without being first ordained, is a point in dispute. Setting this aside, let us regard the logic of the argument. Would it not be equally consistent to argue thus : If Confirmation imprints a character, an unbaptized person, who lacks the baptismal character, could be validly confirmed ; this, however, is impossible ; consequently Confirmation is not a Sacrament. There is confusion here between an indispensable prerequisite and the essence of the thing. The baptismal character is an indispensable prerequisite for Confirmation. In the same way the character of the priesthood is an indispensable prerequisite for episcopal consecration. Neither postulate affects the essence of the respective Sacrament. Again, it is inconsistent to admit the sacramental character of the diaconate, nay to ascribe a character to the four minor orders, and to deny it to episcopal consecration. Does not the administration of Confirmation and Holy Orders, which is reserved to bishops, require greater power than the administration of Baptism, preaching, and serving Mass, which belong to the lower orders? It ie objected, finally: The Church knowi but seven orders, and seven sacramental ordinations corresponding to them, vis.: the four minor orders, the subdiaconate, the diaconate, and the priesthood. If the episcopate were a separate sacramental order, the title * De Septem Ordinibus,* over Session XXIII, cap. 2, of the Decrees of Trent would be wrong. Answer. That there are seven orders is by no means so certain as that there are seven Sacraments. Many canonists and theologians do not hesitate to speak of eight orders. The title * De Septem Ordinibus * was not composed by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council, but added later. Nor would it decide the question at issue even if it were authentic. The chapter thus inscribed treats the episcopate as a separate and distinct order. This fact does not necessarily render the title * De Septem Ordinibus false. For the priesthood can be conceived as a genus with two species, viz.: the sacerdotium mains or primi ordinis, i. e. the episcopate, and the sacerdotium minus or secundi ordinis, i. e. the priesthood proper. The bishop is essentially a priest, but he is at the same time the highest priest (summus sacerdos) in the diocese. Nevertheless there are, theologically speaking, not seven or eight Sacraments of Holy Orders, but only one.48 The lower orders are simply so many stages leading up to the priesthood, which, in turn, culminates in the episcopate.49 Other questions pertaining to the episcopate, especially as regards the power of jurisdiction, belong to Fundamental Theology and Canon Law. 48 Cone. Trident., Sess. XXIII, c. secundum completam rationem est in 2: unum ex septem sacramentis. uno, in aliis autem est aliqua parti40Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa cipatione ipsius/’ Cfr. De AuguTheol., Suppl., qu. 37, art 1, ad 2: ttinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. II, ” Divisio ordinis non est totius in- 2nd ed., pp. 422 sqq.; Palmieri, De tegralis in suas partes neque totius Romano Pontifice, 2nd ed., pp. 84 universalis, sed totius potestativi, sqq., Rome 1897, cuius haec tst nature quod Mum SECTION 2 THE PRIESTHOOD The priesthood, like the episcopate, is a distinct order, superior to the diaconate and instituted by Christ; and the rite of ordination to the priesthood is a true Sacrament. Thesis I: The priesthood is a distinct order, divinely instituted, and superior to the diaconate by the power of consecration and absolution. This proposition is de fide. Proof. The Council of Trent defines: “If anyone saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy, instituted by divine ordination, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathema/‘1 And again: “If anyone saith that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins, … let him be anathema/‘2 1 Scsi. XXIII, can. 4. num vel non esse potesteiem ali2 Sess. XXIII, can. x : “Si quis quam censecrandi et oferendi verum dixerit, non esse in Novo Testa- corpus et sangvinem Domini et pecmento saccrdotium visibilt et exter* cata remittendi ft retinendi, , , , 94 THE PRIESTHOOD 95 The distinction between the priesthood and the episcopate, and the superiority of the former over the diaconate, follows from what has been said of the prerogatives of bishops.3 That there is a priesthood distinct from the episcopate is attested by St. Ignatius of Antioch, as we have seen.4 That this distinction does hot appear in the earlier Patristic writings is owing to the fact that xpco-/?vrcpof was used interchangeably with iwuxKovos* In view of the law of historic continuity it is safe to assume, however, that an institution which was fully developed at the beginning of the second century, in principle existed already in the first. Consequently, the priesthood dates from the first century of the Christian era, and because of the powers with which it is endowed, can have been instituted by none other than our Divine Lord Himself. UptafivTtpoe as a technical term to designate the intermediary stage between bishop and deacon, had passed through a process of development already at the time of St. Ignatius. The stages of this process were probably as follows : ” In itself the name irptfrfivrtpoi designated the presiding officers in general; but long before this signification became generally accepted, popular usage had coined the name 8u£ovoi for the lowest class of church officials. For these the faithful first required a clear designation because they were in close contact with them every day. Thus, after this new name had become current, the irptafivrepot were divided into Scojcovoc and nonStoftovot. The latter were then called citujkowoi or iroipem. When at the close of the Apostolic age (67-110), this terminology proved inadequate, the word cwUtkowo, tnatliema sit.” (Denzinger-Bann- 6 Cfr. Schanz, Die Lehrt von den wart, n. §6i). M. Sakromenten, pp. 663 aqq.v Frci3 V. supra, Sect. 1. burg 1893* 4 V. supra, pp. 82 iq. which, in contradistinction to irpccr/ivrcpoc, was generally employed in the singular number, became the technical term for the chief shepherd of a diocese; the middle class continued to be called woifUves or irpcp/tfrcpoi. The circumstance that irptafivTtpoi was a technical term among Jews and pagans, helped to give this word the preference over others still in use for the aforesaid middle class of officials and thus to make it the terminus technicus for this class.” 6 Thesis II: Ordination to the priesthood is a true Sacrament. This also is de Me. Proof. The sacramentality of sacerdotal ordination, though never expressly defined as an article of faith, is guaranteed by the ordinary teaching office of the Church. a) The Messianic priesthood prefigured in the Old Testament 7 is realized in the New. Christ, commissioned His Apostles and their successors to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice and to forgive sins. From the beginning of the Christian era to the present day, priests as well as bishops have been ordained for both these functions (consecration and absolution). It follows that ordination to the priesthood possesses a character which can be imprinted only by a true Sacrament. b) Ecclesiastical Tradition up to St. Cyprian, e H. Binders, S.J., Die Verfassung der Kirche bis 175 n. Chr., pp. 384 sq., Mayence 1904; cfr. Pesch, PraeUct. Dogmot, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 194 SQQ*» Freiburg 1909. 7 Cfr. Isaias LXVI, 21; Mai. X, xi ; ni, 3. Tertullian, and St. Ignatius of Antioch confirms the existence of priests as a class distinct from and superior to the deacons. Some of the later Fathers, notably St Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, expressly designate the ordination rite for priests as a Sacrament and put it on a level with Baptism.8 Moreover, with the sole exception of the Protestants, all Christian sects regard ordination to the priesthood as a Sacrament. They cannot have invented this belief; it must have come to them from the Catholic Church, to which they all at one time belonged. c) The two arguments just given from Scripture and Tradition may be strengthened by a third, drawn from the teaching of Trent. The Council defines that “Order, or sacred ordination, is truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ.,, 9 Now, one may without heresy (though not without error) doubt the sacramental character of the ordination rite for bishops and deacons. If the ordination rite for priests were not a true Sacrament, there would be no certainty of faith that a Sacrament of Holy Orders exists. ” Hence,” concludes Benedict XIV,10 ” all theologians infer that it must be received as of divine faith that at 8 V, supra, pp. 59 sq. proprium saeramentum. Ad verita• Sen. XXIII, can. 3. tern enim prae dicta* deHnitionis uni10 De Synodo Dioeces., VTII, 9, versoKs necesse est, ut ea ad minis: ” Hinc omnes theologi inferunt mum complectatur ordmem praestanfide dnrind tenendum, saltern ordina- sissimum, quale est sacerdotium” tionem sacerdotum esse verum ei least ordination to the priesthood is truly and properly a Sacrament. For in order that the aforesaid universal definition [of Trent] be true, it must necessarily include at least the foremost order, i. e. the priesthood.” Furthermore, the ordination rite for priests, according to all existing formularies, communicates the Holy Ghost. Now the Council of Trent pronounces anathema against those who deny that the Holy Ghost is given in sacred ordination when the bishop says, ” Receive ye the Holy Ghost/’ 11 This means that the invisible rite is accompanied by and produces invisible grace.12 Consequently, ordination to the priesthood is a true Sacrament. Finally, the Council solemnly defines that u a character is imprinted by that ordination/’ and that ” he who has once been a priest cannot again become a layman/‘18 The imprinting of a character is a specifically sacramental effect. Hence ordination to the priesthood must be a true Sacrament. The Church acts upon this belief in praxi when she refuses to deprive excommunicated or suspended priests of the power of consecration. Neither can she deprive any priest of that other sacerdotal power of forgiving sins, though she can and often does make its exercise invalid by withdrawing the necessary jurisdiction. 11 Seaa. XXIII, can. 4: ••… per 12 V, supra, pp. 72 sqq. sacram ordmationem dart Spiritum 18 Sew. XXIII, can. 4: … per sanctum ac proinde episcopos non earn [ordinationem] imprimi characfrustra dicere: Ac ripe Spiritum terem et eum, qui semel sacerdos sanctum. fuit, laicum rursus fieri non posse. SECTION 3 THE DIACONATE Deacons (diaconi, Srfxovoi), in the technical sense of the term, are men who minister to bishops and priests in the discharge of their official duties.1 Their functions, according to the Roman Ritual, are “to serve at the altar, to baptize, and to preach.” 2 The Catholic teaching on the diaconate may be set forth in two theses, as follows : Thesis I: The diaconate is a distinct order instituted by Christ, and the lowest among the three hierarchical orders. Both propositions are of faith. Proof. In inculcating the divine institution of a hierarchy “consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers/’ 8 the Tridentine Council by the latter term undoubtedly meant to include deacons. That the diaconate is subordinate- to the episcopate and the priesthood follows from the fact that lCfr. Phil. I, i; i Tun. HI, 8 a Ministrar* ad altar*, baptisar* sqq. — On the name * diaconus ” and at praadicare.” its history see H. Bruders, S.J., Dig 8 Sess. XXIII, can. 6: . . qua* Verfassung der Kirch* bis 175 n, constat x apiscopis, prtsbyttris t Chr., pp. 351 sqq. ministris.” 99 the deacons “minister to the priesthood by virtue of their office. 4 a) The origin of the diaconate is described as follows in the Acts of the Apostles: In those days, the number of disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said : It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business… . And they chose Stephen, … and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas… These they set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.” 5 The table service in ancient times was intimately connected with the service of the altar.6 Moreover, we see these seven deacons, especially Stephen and Philip, preaching the Gospel,7 baptizing,8 and ministering at divine worship.9 But does not the passage quoted prove that the diaconate is an Apostolic rather than a divine institution ? This question can best be answered by 4 Cone. Trident., Scss. XXIII, eCfr. i Cor. XI, 21. cap. 21 … qui sactrdotio cx of T Acts VI, 8 sqq.; VIII, 5. ficio deservirent. 8 Acts VIII, 12, 38. • Acts VI, 1 sqq. » 1 Tim. Ill, 8 sqq. THE DIACONATE IOI saying that an office that is always mentioned as organically connected with the priesthood,10 and conferred by the imposition of hands,11 must be of divine institution. b) The Scriptural argument is strengthened by Tradition. The diaconate has always been sharply distinguished from the priesthood, more sharply, in fact, than the episcopate. St. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, which was composed A. D. 96, when St. John the Evangelist was still alive, says: “The Apostles have received the message which they gave us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent by God: hence Christ by God, and the Apostles by Christ, — these things are well ordained according to the will of God… . The Apostles ordained the first among their converts after examining their spirit, to be bishops and deacons.12 Nor is this anything new. For Sacred Scripture says : ’ I will constitute their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith.’ We need not wonder that those to whom this office has been entrusted by God in Christ, have ordained those aforementioned.” 18 St. Ignatius of Antioch (+ 117), speaking of the divine constitution of the Church, says that it cannot exist without deacons. ” Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, and also the bishop, who is the type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and 10 1 Tim. Ill, 2 aqq.; Phil. I, i. ing of irlo-KOirot in the above11 Acts VI, 6. quoted text of St Clement see Bar1 efc ixuTKSxovs Kal diatcSvovs- denhewer, Geschichte der altkirchli18 Clem. Rom., Ep. ad Cor., c. 43, chen Liter at urt Vol. I, p. 106, Frei1 sq. — The Scriptural passage quot- burg 1902. ed is Isaias LX, 17. — On the mean102 HOLY ORDERS the college of the Apostles. Without these [three] the name of 1 Church ’ is not given.” 14 St. Polycarp (+166) says: “The deacons must be blameless before His righteousness, as the servants of God and Christ, and not of man/’ 15 Bishops, priests, and deacons form as it were an inseparable triad also in later Patristic documents. Thus Clement of Alexandria (+217) says of the ecclesiastical hierarchy: “In the Church there is a gradation of bishops, priests, and deacons, which is, I believe, an imitation of the glory of the angels/* 16 Origen (+ 254), who was a simple priest, says of himself : ” More is demanded of me than of the deacon; more of the deacon than of the layman ; but he who occupies the citadel of the whole Church [i. e. the bishop] must give an account of the whole Church/* 17 Among Latin writers Tertullian 18 and St. Optatus of Mileve expressed themselves in similar words. Optatus (+ after 384), deploring the defection of so many Christians during the persecution of Diocletian, distinctly mentions deacons, priests, and bishops among the apostates.19 Thesis II: The ordination to the diaconate is a true Sacrament UAd Trail., 3 — Other similar texts from the writings of St. Ignatius apud Tepc, Inst. Thiol, Vol. IV, p. 579, Paris 1896. 16 Ep. ad Phil., c. s. uStromato, VI, 13. 17 Horn, in lergm., 11, n. 3. 18 De Praescr., c. 41. 19 De Schism. Donat., I, 13: ” Quid commemorem laicos, qui tune in Ecclesia nulla fuerunt dignitate suffultif quid ministros plurimosf quid diaconos in tertio, quid presbyteros in secundo sacerdotio constitutes t Jpsi apices et principcs omnium, aliqui episcopi illis ternporibus … instrumenia divinae Itgis impie tradiderunt.~ Cfr. De Smedt, * L’Organisation des figliscs ChrStiennes jusqu’au Milieu du Hie Steele,” in the Report of the Intern. Scientific Congress for 1888, Vol. II, pp. 297 sqq. THE DIACONATE This proposition, which is upheld by all Catholic theologians with the exception of Durandus20 and Cajetan, is regarded as an article of faith by Vasquez.21 Cardinal Bellarmine contents himself with calling it “valde probabilis.” 22 We prefer to characterize it as “sententia certa” with a firm basis in Scripture and Tradition. a) Sacred Scripture, in speaking of the laying on of hands in the case of St. Stephen and his associates,23 does not say that the rite bestowed grace. However, in view of the high moral demands made by St. Paul upon the newly created deacons,24 it is safe to assume that the ceremony was accompanied by sacramental effects. This probability becomes a certainty in the light of Tradition, which regards the ordination of the seven as the first ordination of deacons and a true Sacrament. ” Behold, the sacred writer does not speak superfluously,” says St. Chrysostom, ” for he does not say in what manner, but simply that they were ordained by the imposition of hands and by prayer.25 For this is ordination.26 The hand of a man is imposed, but God effects the whole, and His hand it is which touches the head of the candidate to be ordained/’ 27 20 Comment, in Sent, IV, dirt. 24, 26 Jr ixetpoTOviBipar W Tpor

b) According to all extant rituals the Holy Ghost is communicated when the bishop lays his hands upon a candidate to make him a deacon. The Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions direct the bishop, when ordaining a deacon, to pray: ” Almighty God, … turn Thy face towards this Thy servant, chosen to serve in the ministry of the diaconate, and fill him with the Holy Spirit and with power, as Thou didst fill Stephen.” 28 According to the Sacramentary of Pope St. Gregory the Great the bishop says : ” Send down upon him, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Holy Ghost, that he may thereby be strengthened in the faithful discharge of the work of Thy ministry, through the bestowal of Thy sevenfold grace. 29 In the Greek Church the bishop prays : * O Lord, our God, . • . pour out the grace which Thou didst grant to Stephen, Thy protomartyr, the first called by Thee for the discharge of this ministry… . Fill this Thy servant, whom Thou wishest to undertake the office of deacon, by the communication of Thy holy and life-giving Spirit, with all faith, charity, and holiness.” 80 Many similar texts have been collected by Martene81 and Denzinger.82 All without exception connect the grace J8 Constitut. Apost., VIII, 17: ” Deus omnipotent, … ostende fadent tuom super servum tuum hunc electum tibi in diaconotus mmisterium, et imple eum Spiritu sancto et virtute, sicut implesti Stephanunu” (Migne, P. C, I, 11 15). 20 ” Emitte in eum, Domme, quaesumus, Spiritum sanctum, quo in opus ministerii fideliter exequendi septiformis gratia* tuae munere roboretur.” (Migne, P. L.t LXXVIII, 9h 80 Goar, Eucholog., p. 250: ” Domine, Deus noster, … gratiam Stephano protomartyri tuo in opus ministerii huius a te primum vocato eoncessam largire. , . . Ipse, Domine, servum tuum hunc, quern dietconi ministerium subire voluisti, sancti et vivifici Spiritus tut adventu omni fide et caritate et sanctiUcatione adimple.” SI De Antiquis Eccles. Ritibus, Vol. II, pp. 35 sqq. 82 Rit. Orient, Vol. II, pp. 8, 69, J33» THE DIACONATE 105 of the Holy Ghost with the imposition of hands in the ordination for the diaconate. Now the Council of Trent declares 83 that a rite in which the bishop says, ” Receive the Holy Ghost/’ cannot be in vain. Consequently, the ordination rite for the diaconate communicates the Holy Ghost, and is a true Sacrament.84 Let it not be objected that the delivery of the book of Gospels is the “matter” of the diaconate, and that no such book existed at the time of the Apostles.85 If this objection proves anything, it proves that the matter of ordination cannot consist in the traditio libri evangeliorum. We do not assert that it does, but hold with the majority of theologians that the matter of the Sacrament consists in the impositio manuum. Another objection has been drawn from the fact that an ancient rite for the administration of minor orders and the blessing of deaconesses, as found in some rituals, contains an invocation of the Holy Ghost.88 However, this rite was never in general use, is of post-Apostolic origin, and was abrogated in course of time. Hence it must have been of purely ecclesiastical institution. The Church, as we have learnt, can neither institute nor abrogate Sacraments. assess. XXIII, can. 4. MCfr. Ac* VI, 6. 84Cfr. Benedict XIV, De Synodo «Cfr. Const Apost., VIII, ao: Dioeces., VIII, 9, 2. — On the form ” Ipse nunc respice hanc ancilhm of the ordination rite for the diac- electam ad ministerinm et da si Spionate see Ch. I, Sect a. No. a, p. ritum sanctum.” 70 supra. SECTION 4 THE SUBDIACONATE AND THE FOUR MINOR ORDERS That the subdiaconate and the four so-called ordines minores are ecclesiastical orders has never been denied. The only question is whether they are sacramental and directly instituted by Christ. The Church not having defined anything on this point, theologians are free to debate it pro and con. In matter of fact there is a long-standing controversy, which cannot, however, be decided on dogmatic grounds but must be fought out in the arena of history. i. The Subdiaconate Not a Sacramental Ordo. — As the name itself indicates, a subdeacon (subdiaconus, Wo&oicowk) is one who ministers to a deacon. The functions of a subdeacon according to the Pontificate Rotnanum are: “to prepare water for the ministry of the altar ; to assist the deacon ; to wash the altar cloths and corporals, and to present to him [the deacon] the chalice and paten for the use of the sacrifice.” 1 That the subdiaconate is not a Sacrament was mainl M… oquam ad ministerium al- calicem et patenam in usum sacrificii taris proeparare, diacono ministrare, eidtm off err e” {Pontific, Roman,) folia altaris §t corporal*} eblutri, 106 tained by Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, Durandus, and Cajetan. Other Scholastic writers regarded the subdiaconate as well as the four minor orders as sacramental. Of later authors, Vasquez 2 held that the subdiaconate is a Sacrament, whereas minor orders are not. However, since Morinus, Benedict XIV, and St. Alphonsus, the common opinion among Catholic theologians is that probably no order below deaconship is a true Sacrament.8 This opinion rests on weighty arguments. a) The subdiaconate was unknown before the third century, and consequently must owe its origin to the Church. As the Church cannot institute Sacraments, the subdiaconate is not a Sacrament. a) The minor premise of this syllogism requires no proof. All the Sacraments, both in regard to matter and to form, have been directly instituted by Christ Himself.4 Any rite instituted by human authority is at most a mere sacramental. This argument is not disproved by the contention5 that the subdiaconate and the four minor orders have developed from, and must therefore have been virtually contained in, the diaconate. This fact, as Atzberger observes, ” does not suffice to make them Sacraments; for if it was the Church that developed these orders from the diaconate, the rite of their administration cannot be sacramental, because all Sacraments owe their institution immediately to Christ.” 6 2 Comment in S. Theol., III, disp. ments, Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq. 288, c. 2. s Cfr. Thomassin, De Benef., P. I, 8 Among the few who hold that 1. 2, c. 30; Liebermann, De Sacram. the orders below deaconship are a Ord,f c. 1, §3; Dalponte, Comsacrament, are Glossner, De Augu- pendium, p. 721, Trent 1890. stinis, Billot, Sasse, and Egger. 6 Sheeben-Atzberger, Dogmatik, 4 V. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- IV, 3. 760. ft) The major premise can be demonstrated historically. No extant document prior to the third century speaks of the subdiaconate. Most likely this order was instituted by Pope Fabian (236-250). 7 ” Fabianus,” says the Liber Pontificate, “natione Romanus, … regiones [urbis Romae] d%7Asit diaconibus et fecit septetn subdiaconos, qui septetn notariis imminerent, ut gesta martyrum in integrum colligerent” * This fact had not been entirely forgotten in the Middle Ages, for at the Council of Benevento (1091) Pope Urban II declared that while in exceptional cases subdeacons might be elected to the episcopate, the only sacred orders recognized by the primitive Church were the diaconate and the priesthood.9 The Decretum Gratiani (1150) expressly says: “We read that levites [i. e. deacons] were ordained by the Apostles, chief among them being St. Stephen ; the subdeacons and acolytes were in course of time appointed by the Church.” 10 This theory was adopted by Peter Lombard,11 and St. Thomas, seemingly forgetful of his own teaching, says in his Opusculum against William of SaintAmour that ”… there were in the primitive Church only two sacred orders, the priesthood and the diaconate, but 7 A. D. 236-250. t Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, If 148. 9 Can. 1 : ” Nullus deinceps in episcopum eNgatur nisi qui in sacris ordinibus religiose vwens inventus est. Sacros autem ordines dicimus diaconatum et presbyteratum; hos siquidem solos primitive legitur Ecclesia habuisse, super his solum praeceptum kabemus Apostoli. Subdiaconos vero, quia et ipsi altaribus deserviunt, opportunitate exigente concedimus, sed rarissime.” (Hardonin, Condi., Vol. VI. p. 1695)* 10 Deer. Grat, disk 21 : ” LevUas [«. e. diaconos] ab Apostolis ordinatos legimus, quorum maximus fuit beatus Stepkenus. Subdiaconos et acolythos tempore Eccheia const tuit.” 11 Sent., IV, dist 25, n. 9: ” Ecce de sept em Eeelesime gradibus breviter elocuti, quid ad quemquam pertineat, insinuavimus. Quumque omnes spirituals sint of sacri, excel’ lenter tamen canones duos tantum sacros ordines appellari consent, diaconatus scil. et presbyteratus {motor et minor}, quia hos solos primitiva Ecdesia legitur hebuisse. Subdiaconos vero et acolythos procedente tempore Ecdesia sibi constitute” THE SUBDIACONATE 109 the Church later on instituted for herself minor orders.” 12 How are we to explain the fact that the subdiaconate, despite its purely human institution, ” is classed among the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred councils ” ? 18 The answer is that the subdiaconate, like the hypodiaconate among the Greeks, was always regarded as a minor order in the ancient Latin Church, and that its elevation to the rank of a major order, with the obligation of celibacy, is the work of the Church in later times.14 It is possible approximately to determine the time when this change occurred. Peter Cantor, writing about 1197, says that the subdiaconate had “lately been made a sacred order.” 16 Early in the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III, recalling the above-mentioned decree of Urban II, authoritatively declared that the subdiaconate must be counted among the major orders, and that a subdeacon may be elected to the episcopacy without a dispensation.16 b) The ordination rite for the subdiaconate lacks both matter and form, and therefore cannot be a Sacrament. The essence of the Sacrament of Holy Orders consists in the imposition of hands as the matter, and the invocation of the Holy Ghost as the form. The rite of ordaining a subdeacon contains neither of these two ceremonies, and 12 Opusc, 37 (al. 17). P. 2, c. 4. concl. 6: ”… sieut etiam in prymitk a Ecclesia fuerunt duo soli ordines sacri, presbyteri et diaconi, et tamen posted Ecclesia minor es sibi or dines instituit.”— The term ” minor orders * in this connection evidently includes the subdiaconate. 18 Cone. Trident., Sess. XXIII, c. a: * Subdiaconatus ad maiores ordimes a patrxbus et sacris conciliis refertur.” 14 V. supra, Ch. II, Sect 2. lBDe Verbo MiriRco, c. 57: “Prima autem manus impositio debetur diaconibus ordinandis, de novo enim institutum est subdiaconatum esse sacrum ordmem.” (Migne, P. L„ LXXVIII, 482). 16 Decret. Greg., 1. I, tit 24, c 9: no HOLY ORDERS consequently lacks both matter and form. The words ” Accipe Spiritum sanctum/9 upon which the Tridentine Council17 lays such stress, are entirely wanting in the ordination rite of the subdiaconate.18 Cardinal Bellarmine holds that the subdiaconate is a Sacrament because it cannot be repeated. But his reasoning is not conclusive. No blessing is strictly speaking capable of repetition.19 Thus the benediction of a church, or of an altar, or of an abbot, cannot be repeated, though none of them are sacramental. From the fact that a Sacrament imprints a character we may legitimately infer that it can be received but once ; 20 but it will not do to reverse the argument. Moreover, the subdeaconship may, with papal dispensation, be conferred by an ordinary priest, whereas the three major orders can be conferred only by a bishop.21 2. The Four Minor Orders. — There are in the Western Church four minor orders: that of porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte. The Eastern Church has only two: hypodeacon and lector. “In quibus verbis innuitur, quod Urbanus ad statum primitive* Beclesioe se referens, in quo subdiaconotus ordo sacer minime dicebatur, instituit ut de subdiacono nisi utUitatis causa … non posset electio celebrari. Verum quum ho die sub* diaconatus inter sacros ordines computetur, . • . statuimus ut subdiaconus in episcopum valeat liber e elegi, sicut diaconus et sacerdos.” 17 Seas. XXII, can. 4. 18 The cogency of this conclusion is not weakened by the fact that the Greeks since time immemorial ad* minister the hypodiaconate by the imposition of hands and invocation of the Holy Ghost, for they expressly rank the subdiaconate with the lectorate as a mere minor order distinct from the major orders. (Cfr. Goar, Eucholog., p. 427). i» Cfr. St. Thomas, Comment, in Sent, IV, dist. 24, qu. 1, art. 1. 20 Cfr. Cone, Trident,, Sess. VII, can. 9. 21 V. infra, Ch. II, pp. 120 sqq. — On the ordination rite for the subdiaconate see Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 304 sqq., Freiburg 1903. MINOR ORDERS in Minor orders are conferred by the delivery to the candidate of the appropriate instruments, in accordance with the ritual given in the Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, a document which originated in Gaul about the year 500.22 Lacking historical knowledge, Blessed Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Paludanus, and other Scholastics maintained the sacramentality of minor orders. They were followed by Bellarmine, Estius, Gonet, Billuart, Gotti, and several contemporary authors, notably Glossner, De Augustinis, Billot, Sasse, and Egger. Against these writers Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, Durandus, Cajetan, Vasquez, Morinus, St. Alphonsus, and the majority of present-day theologians contend that the four minor orders are not sacramental. This position seems to us the only tenable one, for two reasons. a) The four minor orders did not exist in the Apostolic age, but were instituted one by one, as the need for them arose, in the course of the third century, and hence are of purely ecclesiastical origin. Tertullian,28 it is true, incidentally speaks of a ” lector,” but not as belonging to the clergy. Where he enumerates the different ecclesiastical orders, he mentions but three, viz.: the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate.24 The first mention of the complete series of orders is found in a letter of Pope Cornelius (251-253) to Fabius of Antioch. The Pontiff states that there are among 22 Cfr. Boudinhon, Coth. Encyclo- Alius hodie episcopus, eras alius; pedia, Vol. X, pp. 332 sq.; Gihr, hodie diaconus, qui eras lector; hodie op. cis., pp. 297 sqq. presbyter, qui eras laicus.” 28 De Praeseript., c. 41: u Ordi- 24 De Bapt., 17; De Fuga, ix; De nat tones eorum {i. e. haereticoruml Monog., 11, t enter ariae, leves, inconstantes… . 112 HOLY ORDERS the Roman clergy forty-two priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, and fifty-two exorcists, lectors, and porters.25 While it is not likely that Cornelius himself had instituted the four minor orders mentioned in his letter, they are nowhere enumerated fully and in proper sequence before his time. St. Cyprian (+258) speaks of exorcists, lectors, and acolytes, but makes no mention of porters. Note that in the early Church the number of minor orders was not fixed and that occasionally ecclesiastical offices are mentioned which are not orders at all, e. g., custos martyrum, notarius, defensor, psalmista, fossarius, etc.26 De Augustinis attributes great importance to the canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage, holding that the rites which they describe27 reflect the discipline of the latter part of the fourth century. In matter of fact, however, these canons are spurious and were composed in or near the city of Aries towards the beginning of the sixth century.28 In the ninth century, Amalarius, Archbishop of Treves, recognized the priesthood (with its two degrees) and the diaconate as divinely instituted hierarchical orders, adding: “The other orders were added to these. The growth of the Church entailed an increase in ecclesiastical offices ; that the multitude might be properly served, lower officials were appointed to assist the higher ones.” 20 25 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., VI, 43, xx : “lilt ergo Epongtln vindex [sett. Novatianus] ignorabat, unum episeoputn esse o port ere in Eeclesia catholicaf In quo nou ei latebat (quomodo enitn illud nescire potuisset?) presbyter os quidem esse 42. septem out em diaconos totidemque subdiaconos, ocoluthos 42, exorcistas §t leetores cum ostiarHs 5*/’ (Migtte, P. G., XX, 612). 2« Cfr. Palmieri, De Rom. PonHHce, 2nd ed., pp. 98 sq., Rome 1897. ST Cfr. Denxinger-Batmwart, n. 150 sqq. 28 Cfr. Maassen, Geschiehte der Quellen und Lkeratur des kanonischen Rechts, Vol. I, p. 382, Graz 1870. 29 De Dw. Ojfic., II, 6: u Ceteri MINOR ORDERS ii3 What the Church has introduced she can abolish. The Greek Church in course of time did abolish all her minor orders 80 except the hypodiaconate and the lectorate. We do not find that the Latin Church ever protested against this change, which she would surely have done had it involved a mutilation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders or the suppression of any essential part thereof. These and other considerations led Morinus to u regard the proposition that the subdiaconate and the four minor orders are not Sacraments as so certain and self-evident that no one can deny it who has given due consideration to the testimony of the Fathers.” 81 b) The weakness of the objections urged against our thesis is another argument in its favor. The Decretum pro Armenis proves nothing because Pope Eugene IV did not intend to issue an ex-cathedra definition on the subject of the sacramentality of the four minor orders.82 Moreover, the teaching embodied in that Decree would not lose its value even if the sacramental character of the subdiaconate and the four minor orders were denied. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is sufficiently safeguarded by insisting on the ordines his adiecti sunt; crescent* EcclesM crevit ofHcium occlesiasticum: ut multitudini Ecclesiae subveniri posset, adUckmtur inferiores in adiutorio proepositorum,” (Mfrne, P. L.t CV, 1082). 80 Council of Antioch, 341; Council of Laodicea, 36a. Si De Sacram. Ord.. P. Ill, exercft. ii, c. 1: ” Propos&ionem, qua asseritur et subdiaconatum et quattuor minor es ordines non esse sacramenta iudico tarn esse certom et evident em, ut qui ea {testimonia patrum] consider avit, ire contra vix que at.” — On the history of the different orders the student may profitably consult Fr. Wieland, Die genetische Entwichlung der sop. Ordines Minaret in den erst en drei Jahrhunder ten, Freiburg 1879. S3 V. supra, p. 65. sacramentality of its three highest grades.88 The contrary attitude of St. Antoninus,84 who is supposed to have been an intimate friend of Eugene IV, throws no light on our question, for he nowhere refers to the Council of Florence, at which the Decretum pro Armenis was passed, as a decisive authority. If it had been the intention of the Council to decide this question, how are we to explain the fact that the contrary opinion, as embodied in our thesis, obtained all but universal acceptance afterwards? Nor can anything be proved against our thesis from the decrees of Trent (1562). Even our opponents admit 85 that the Tridentine Council purposely omitted to give a decision on the subject. It matters not what the private opinions of the assembled theologians were.86 It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided. The Council expressly teaches that all those ordinations (and consequently those alone) in which the bishop pronounces the words, ” Receive the Holy Ghost,” bestow grace and imprint the sacramental character.87 These words are used only in the ordination rites for the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate, and consequently, according to the mind of the Tridentine Council, these three orders alone are sacramental. 3. The Tonsure. — The tonsure {prima tonsura), so called from the ceremony of cutting the hair, is neither an ordo nor a Sacrament, but merely a ceremony of initiation into the clerical state. 38 V. supra, Sect 1-3. 86 Cfr. Aug. Theiner, Acta, Vol. 84 Sumtna Motor, P. Ill, tit. 14, c. II, pp. 135 sqq. 16, § 1 and 3. 87 Cone. Trident., Sess. XXIII, ss Cfr. De Augustinis. De Re can. 4. Sacrament., Vol. II, p. 480. TONSURE “5 * Non est ordo* says St. Thomas, * sed praeambulum ad ordinem* 88 Originally the tonsure formed part of the rite by which the first of the greater orders was conferred. Since about A. D. 700 it is given separately. The tonsure may be traced on mosaic portraits of the saints as far back as the middle of the fifth century. The custom of cutting the hair as a mark of initiation into the clerical state seems to have arisen towards the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, in imitation of an ancient monastic practice. In the early part of the sixth century the tonsure was not yet generally prescribed. The Council of Agde (506) simply forbade clerics to wear their hair long (comam nutrire). Clerical tonsure became obligatory in the Middle Ages, and the Canon Law of the Church contains a number of severe penalties for those who refused to wear it. The Council of Trent presupposes tonsure as a condition for the reception of the lesser as well as the greater orders.88 By the act of receiving the surplice and having his hair cut a man becomes a cleric and is endowed with all the privileges pertaining to the clerical state, but he is not authorized to exercise any ordo.40 88 Summa Thiol., Supplement., 40 On the tonsure see E. Taunton, qu. 40, art. 2. The Law of the Church, London 89 Sess. XXIII, cap. 2: 1906, pp. 6x9 sq., Cath. Encyclopedia, qui tarn clericali tonsuro) insigniti es- Vol. XIV, p. 779; Ziegler, De Tonsent, per minor es ad maiores {ordi- sura Clericali, Wittenberg 1718. nee] ascenderent,”