Part II: Holy Orders

Introduction

Between the priesthood (ordo in esse) and ordination to the priesthood (ordo in fieri), there is a distinction similar to that between the married state and matrimony.

The election of a pope is not a Sacrament, and it is possible to conceive of a divinely instituted priesthood into which a man could enter without receiving a Sacrament. In order, therefore, to show that Holy Orders is a true Sacrament, it is not enough to prove that the priesthood has been divinely instituted; it must also be demonstrated that the act by which a man becomes a priest is a true Sacrament (sacramentum ordinis, or, more correctly, ordinationis). In other words, we must prove that the distinction between the clergy and the laity¹ is based upon a Sacrament.

A specific question to be answered is whether the three hierarchical orders existing in the Catholic Church — the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate — are sacramental, and what is the nature of the subdiaconate and the four minor orders.

Chapter 1: Holy Orders a True Sacrament

Section 1: Divine Institution

1. Heretical Vagaries vs. the Teaching of the Church. Luther denied the existence of a Christian priesthood, and his example was followed by Flacius Illyricus, Martin Chemnitz, and other faithful disciples.

a) Calvin hesitated to deny the sacramentality of “the imposition of hands by which the Church introduces her ministers into office.”² Melanchthon, after many tergiversations, in the later editions of his Loci admitted ordination to be a Sacrament. To-day nearly all Protestant sects reject the episcopal form of church government and with it all semblance of a Sacrament of Order.

b) The Catholic doctrine on the subject is thus authoritatively stated by the Council of Trent: “If anyone saith that Order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; or that it is only a sort of rite for choosing ministers of the word of God and of the Sacraments; let him be anathema.”³

This canon does not decide the question whether and to what extent the different orders participate in the sacramentality of Holy Orders, but merely declares in general terms that the rite of ordination is a true Sacrament.

This teaching can easily be demonstrated from Scripture and Tradition.

2. Proof from Sacred Scripture. Though it seems that Christ called His Apostles to the priesthood without any special ceremony,⁴ He undoubtedly instituted a sacramental rite for the purpose of transmitting the power of orders (potestas ordinis), for Holy Scripture speaks of an external sign combined with internal grace, which can derive its efficacy only from being divinely instituted.

a) The external sign is the imposition of hands (manuum impositio). The “prayer” mentioned in connection with this ceremony does not seem to be the sacramental form, but merely a worthy preparation for the reception of the Sacrament.

In the sixth chapter of the Acts we are told that the disciples, at the bidding of the Apostles, chose seven deacons. “These they set before the Apostles, and they praying, imposed hands upon them.”⁵ The matter of the Sacrament is here plainly indicated. It is the impositio manuum. The prayer might be taken for the form, were it not that the Greek aorist participle seems to indicate a mere preparation for the imposition of hands, connected with this rite in a purely external way. This is still more clearly brought out in the biblical account of the ordination of Paul and Barnabas, where we read: “Then they, fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.”⁶ Here prayer is put on a level with fasting as a preparation for the sacred rite. It is important to note that Paul and Barnabas exercised the power which they had themselves received, by ordaining priests for the different churches. Acts XIV, 22: “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.”⁷

That the power of ordination was to be transmitted by means of an external rite appears from St. Paul’s command to his disciple Timothy: “Impose not hands lightly upon any man.”⁸

b) The “imposition of hands” communicates divine grace. This can be shown from St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy.

“I admonish thee,” he says (2 Tim. I, 6), “that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.” A careful analysis of this text leads to the following conclusions:

(1) According to the context the grace conferred on Timothy by the imposition of hands was to qualify him for the worthy administration of the episcopal office, and consequently this particular cheirothesia cannot be identical either with Confirmation or Extreme Unction.⁹ St. Chrysostom paraphrases the Pauline passage as follows: “Excite anew the grace which thou hast received for the purpose of presiding in the Church.”¹⁰

(2) Charisma here cannot simply mean a charismatic gift (gratia gratis data), for St. Paul frequently employs the term as a synonym of charis (caritas, gratia gratum faciens),¹¹ and this meaning is clearly demanded by the context of the passage quoted, which enumerates the qualities that render men pleasing in the eyes of God. 2 Tim. I, 7: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.”¹² Moreover, a permanent grace which is capable of being “kindled anew” by the personal efforts of its possessor cannot be a charismatic gift, but must be identical with sanctifying grace.

A sort of parallel passage to the one just analyzed is 1 Tim. IV, 14: “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.”¹³ Here again the permanent grace communicated by Holy Orders is described as an effect of the imposition of hands, the only difference being that the Apostle does not speak of the rite as administered by his own hands, but by the presbyterium.¹⁴ But what had “prophecy” to do with the ordination of Timothy? St. Paul probably means that he himself was prophetically inspired when he chose his favorite disciple for episcopal honors.¹⁵

c) That the rite of ordination was instituted by Christ follows from the scriptural teaching that this rite is a visible sign conferring invisible grace. No one but the God-man Himself could establish this connection. The institution of the Sacrament probably took place between the Resurrection of Christ and His Ascension.

3. Proof from Tradition. An argument from Tradition may be construed (a) from the consentient teaching of the Catholic Church, the Greek schismatics, and heretical sects;¹⁶ (b) from ancient ordination formularies that have come down to us, and (c) from the express testimony of the Fathers. We shall confine ourselves to the latter.

St. Gregory of Nyssa says: “The same power of the word renders sublime and honorable the priest, who by the newness of ordination has been singled out from the multitude; he who was yesterday and previously one from among the people [i.e., a layman], suddenly becomes a commander, a presiding officer, a teacher of righteousness, the dispenser of hidden mysteries… . Though in his external appearance he is the same as he was before, yet in his invisible soul, by a certain unseen power and grace, he is transformed into a higher being.”¹⁷

St. Chrysostom says in his famous treatise “On the Priesthood”: “The office of the priesthood is exercised on earth, but it ranks amongst things that are heavenly, and with good reason. For it was neither a man nor an angel nor an archangel nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself that established this ministry… . If you consider what it is for a man clothed in flesh and blood to be able to approach that pure and blessed nature [of the angels], you will easily understand to what a dignity the grace of the Holy Ghost has raised priests.”¹⁸

This sublime dignity is acquired by ordination. “If the pledge of the Holy Spirit no longer existed,” says the same writer, “there would be no Baptism and no remission of sins, … nor should we consume the mysteries; for the mystic Flesh and Blood does not exist except by the grace of the Holy Ghost. Nor should we have priests, because without such a descent, [Holy] Orders would be impossible.”¹⁹

St. Jerome deduces the validity of orders conferred by heretics from the fact that Baptism administered by them is valid.²⁰ St. Augustine puts the two Sacraments on the same level: “Each is a Sacrament and is given by a certain consecration: the one when a man is baptized, the other when he is ordained, and therefore in the Catholic [Church] it is not permitted to repeat either.”²¹ He asks the Donatists to “explain why the Sacrament of the baptized cannot be lost, while the Sacrament of the ordained can be lost. If both are Sacraments, which no one doubts, how is the one not lost [by apostasy], while the other is? No injury should be done to either Sacrament.”²²

In a treatise on the dignity of the priesthood, often ascribed to St. Ambrose, but probably composed by Pope Sylvester II, we read: “Who gives the episcopal grace, O brother? God or man? You answer without hesitation: God. But God gives it through man. A man imposes his hands, God showers down His grace. The priest raises his right hand in supplication, and God blesses with His mighty right hand. The bishop confers the order, God bestows the dignity.”²³

The Sacrament of Holy Orders has always been administered in the Church. The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) forbade bishops to ordain unworthy candidates to the episcopate, the priesthood, or the diaconate, under penalty of being deprived of their office and dignity.²⁴ Simoniacal ordinations were strictly prohibited by the councils of Orléans (533), Braga (563), Toledo (653), and the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787).

The Patristic Tradition was continued by the Schoolmen²⁵ up to the threshold of modern times.²⁶