Holy Orders — Matter and Form

Section 2: Matter and Form

1. The Matter. In trying to ascertain what constitutes the matter of this Sacrament, we must make a distinction between the three major orders on the one hand, and the subdiaconate and minor orders on the other. We are here concerned only with the so-called major or sacred orders (the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate), because the others, as we shall see presently, are not sacramental.

In the Orient the Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred solely by the imposition of hands (manuum impositio), whereas in the Latin Church the delivery of the instruments (traditio instrumentorum) forms an important part of the ordination rite. The question arises: which of these two ceremonies constitutes the matter of the Sacrament? There has been a celebrated controversy on this subject.

a) St. Bonaventure,¹ Peter Soto,² Morinus, Goar, Martène, Tournely, Perrone, Franzelin, Schwetz, Oswald, Pesch, Tepe, and the majority of present-day theologians hold that the imposition of hands is the sole matter of the Sacrament.

The arguments in favor of this view are very strong, not to say conclusive.

α) As we have seen,³ Holy Scripture ascribes the conferring of grace exclusively to the imposition of hands. We cannot reasonably assume that the Bible omits to mention the rite which constitutes the essential matter of the Sacrament, insisting on something entirely non-essential.⁴ Moreover, the rite of ordination is undoubtedly older than the Book of the Gospels, which plays so important a part in the “traditio instrumentorum.”

β) The Fathers and the Church councils held during the first nine centuries do not mention the “traditio instrumentorum,” but merely speak of the “impositio manus,”⁵ as does the Council of Trent.⁶ This silence cannot be explained by the Discipline of the Secret.

γ) The delivery of the instruments is not mentioned in any ritual composed before A.D. 900.⁷ The early Scholastics speak of it as a merely declarative and consequently non-essential ceremony.⁸ Hence the rite cannot have been introduced earlier than the tenth century and must be of ecclesiastical institution.

May it not be possible that the Church received from Christ the power to determine the specific matter of this Sacrament, but failed to exercise that power until the tenth century? We answer that this hypothesis is incompatible with the teaching of the Tridentine Council,⁹ and, moreover, intrinsically improbable, because we cannot reasonably assume that the Church degraded the original rite instituted by the Apostles to the rank of a non-essential ceremony and in its place adopted an entirely new one.¹⁰

δ) Our fourth and final argument is that the Greek Church has always employed the impositio manuum as the sole rite of ordination from the beginning to the present day. Nor was the Greek teaching or practice on this head ever denied or challenged in the course of the many debates held at Lyons, 1274, and at Florence, 1439, with a view to reunite the two churches.

De Lugo maintained¹¹ that both rites — the imposition of hands and the giving of the instruments — constitute the matter of the Sacrament, the one for the East, the other for the West. This view was approved by Cardinal Franzelin¹² and recommended by Msgr. Gutberlet.¹³ But it seems to us incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of the unity and immutability of the Sacraments. The Church has never claimed the right to change either the matter or the form of any Sacrament.¹⁴

If the impositio manuum constitutes the sole matter of the Sacrament, it follows that the traditio instrumentorum is a non-essential ceremony added by the Church and that the subdiaconate and the four minor orders, in which there is no imposition of hands, are not sacramental rites.

b) The view held by Dominicus Soto, Capreolus, Gregory of Valentia,¹⁵ Gonet, Estius, and many other Scholastic theologians, that the delivery of the instruments constitutes the matter of the Sacrament, whereas the imposition of hands is accidental and merely a matter of integrity (materia integrans), may now be considered obsolete.

The advocates of this theory derived their main argument from the Decretum pro Armenis of Pope Eugene IV, which says: “The sixth Sacrament is Order, of which the matter is that by the giving of which Order is conferred, as the priesthood by the giving of the chalice with the wine and the paten with the bread; the diaconate by handing [to the ordinand] the Book of the Gospels; the subdiaconate by the giving of the empty chalice with an empty paten resting upon it,” etc.¹⁶ But the Decretum pro Armenis (drawn almost literally from St. Thomas’ Opusculum de Fidei Articulis et Septem Sacramentis), while it possesses very high authority, is not an ex-cathedra decision, but merely a papal instruction issued for the purpose of effecting conformity between the Armenian and the Roman rites. Hence its characteristic reference to the Roman Ritual, which expressly prescribes the imposition of hands, a practice that had long been in use among the Armenians.¹⁷ Benedict XIV correctly estimates the import of the Decretum for our purpose when he says: “It is therefore necessary to admit that Pope Eugene spoke of the integrating and accessory matter and form [of the Sacrament], which he desired the Armenians to add to the imposition of hands long employed by them, in order that they might conform themselves to the custom of the Latin Church.”¹⁸ In the light of this interpretation it is easy to refute Döllinger’s specious contention that the Decretum pro Armenis, because of its false teaching on the subject of Holy Orders, furnishes an argument against the infallibility of the Pope.¹⁹

c) Bellarmine, De Lugo, Hallier, Vasquez, Maldonatus, Ledesma, Billuart, Berti, Gotti, and others hold that the imposition of hands and the delivery of the instruments conjointly constitute the matter of the Sacrament. This view has found two eminent modern defenders in Cardinal Billot²⁰ and Msgr. Gutberlet.²¹

Assuming that Christ, in instituting the Sacrament of Holy Orders, determined its matter and form only in a generic way, leaving the specific determination to the Church, the writers of this group describe the traditio instrumentorum as a palpable sign of the grace conferred by the impositio manuum, and therefore as a co-essential factor forming a moral whole with the impositio. The author of the Supplementum to the Summa Theologica²² says that when a man is ordained to the priesthood, the imposition of hands symbolizes and bestows the power of absolution, while the delivery of the instruments (chalice and paten) symbolizes and bestows the power of consecration.

If we examine this theory in the light of the arguments adduced above under (a), we find that it is not well founded. The Bible, the Fathers, the councils, and the ancient liturgies all agree that the imposition of hands alone is essential to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As, however, the pars tutior must always be followed in the administration of the Sacraments, the Church in her ordinations strictly carries out the ceremony of the delivery of instruments.

2. The Form. The difference of opinion existing with regard to the matter of Holy Orders involves a similar difference in regard to its form. If the imposition of hands constitutes the sole matter of the Sacrament, the form must be sought in the prayer accompanying this rite.

The sacred anointment which the Church uses in ordaining bishops and priests is an ancient ceremony, described by Pope St. Leo the Great, but it does not form part of the essential matter of the Sacrament and therefore does not affect its form, though it is well to remember that the Tridentine Council pronounced anathema against those who despise this beautiful rite.²³

a) In ordaining a priest to the episcopacy, the consecrating bishop and his two assistants place the Book of the Gospels upon his neck and shoulders, touch his head with their hands, and together pronounce the words: “Accipe Spiritum sanctum.” Then the consecrator alone recites the following prayer: “Propitiare, Domine, supplicationibus nostris et inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratiae sacerdotalis benedictionis tuae in eum infunde virtutem.” Here we have two separate and distinct prayers — one imperative in form, the other precatory. Church historians tell us that the imperative form, “Accipe Spiritum sanctum,” which is likewise employed in the ordination of priests and deacons, is of comparatively recent origin and does not occur in the ancient rituals of the Latin or the euchologia of the Greek Church.²⁴ Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the second prayer, which is recited by the consecrating bishop alone, embodies the sacramental form of episcopal ordination. This does not derogate from the Tridentine canon which declares: “If anyone saith that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given, and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ … let him be anathema.”²⁵ For to say that the Holy Ghost is given in the rite of ordination is not tantamount to saying that He is imparted through this particular set of words. In the second prayer the phrase “cornu gratiae sacerdotalis” also signifies the power of the Holy Ghost.

The same argument applies to the two other hierarchical orders — the priesthood and the diaconate.

b) There is, however, some difficulty in regard to the former, since the rite of ordination to the priesthood seems to contain no less than three distinct impositions. First the bishop silently lays both hands on the head of the ordinand. The same is done by all the priests who are present. Then bishop and priests together extend their right hands, while the former prays: “Oremus, fratres carissimi, Deum Patrem omnipotentem, ut super hunc famulum suum, quem ad presbyteratus munus elegit, caelestia dona multiplicet et, quod eius dignatione suscipit, ipsius consequatur auxilio… . Exaudi nos, quaesumus, Domine Deus noster, et super hunc famulum tuum benedictionem sancti Spiritus et gratiae sacerdotalis infunde virtutem.” This part of the ceremony is known as manuum extensio. After Communion, the bishop imposes his hands upon the candidate for the third time and says: “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseris peccata, remittuntur eis, et quorum retinueris, retenta sunt.” This is the impositio manuum proper. The question arises: which of these three rites, with its accompanying prayers, is sacramental? The first laying-on of hands cannot be essential, because it is accomplished silently. Van Rossum considers it as merely a part of the second imposition. The third and final impositio seems equally non-essential, because the candidate has already exercised the sacerdotal power by co-consecrating the bread and wine, and for the further reason that this rite is unknown to the Greek Church. Hence the prayer accompanying the last impositio manuum cannot be the form of the Sacrament, and the conclusion is inevitable that the matter of the Sacrament consists in the second imposition — the manuum extensio, conceived as a continuation of the physical contact embodied in the first.²⁶ If this rite constitutes the matter, then the accompanying words of the bishop must constitute the form of the Sacrament.

We must reject as inconsistent the opinion of those who hold that all three of these ceremonies, because intrinsically connected with one another and together constituting one moral act, with their accompanying prayers (as partial forms) are essential to the validity of the Sacrament.²⁷

c) The ordination rite for the diaconate contains only one imposition of hands, and consequently the sacramental form must be contained in the prayer “Domine sancte Pater omnipotens,” which accompanies this ceremony. It is not likely that the form is in the words “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ad robur et ad resistendum diabolo,” etc., because this phrase, as Martène has shown, is “hardly four hundred years old.”²⁸

The ordination rite for the subdiaconate contains no impositio manuum, but merely a traditio instrumentorum, and consequently cannot claim to be sacramental.²⁹ This applies a fortiori to the four minor orders.

3. Anglican Orders. The question regarding the validity of Anglican Orders gave rise to a long controversy, which was definitively decided by Leo XIII in his dogmatic Bull “Apostolicae curae” of Sept. 13, 1896.

The decision against the validity of these orders rests, not on the historic fact that William Barlow, who consecrated Dr. Matthew Parker, the first Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, at Lambeth on Dec. 17, 1559, was not a validly consecrated bishop, but on the dogmatic fact that the Edwardine rite of ordination, drawn up in 1549, had purposely altered the sacramental form of Holy Orders so as to exclude the intention of bestowing the power of consecration and absolution. This perversion, together with the manifest lack of a proper intention, deprives the rite of its sacramental effect.³⁰ “It is clear,” says St. Thomas, “that if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament becomes invalid.”³¹ This principle explains the custom existing long before the Leonine decision (practically since 1554) of unconditionally reordaining converted Anglican clergymen. The orders conferred under the Edwardine Ordinal were declared null and void by Paul IV as early as 1555.³²

Appendix I: The “Decretum pro Armenis” in the Light of Recent Research

Cardinal Van Rossum³³ has since demonstrated with absolute certainty that Eugene IV in his famous Decree positively intended to exclude the imposition of hands as an essential element of ordination and to place the essence of the Sacrament of Orders solely in the delivery of the instruments, as taught by St. Thomas. Hence it is plain that the Decree no longer binds under the present changed discipline.

That the Decretum pro Armenis was not an ex cathedra definition, and that its author did not intend it to be such, is further evidenced, according to Cardinal Van Rossum, by two facts. The first is that for at least a hundred years the Decree had fallen into complete desuetude in the Latin Church, until Ruardus Tapper (d. 1559) exhumed it. The second fact is that later popes, e.g., Clement VIII³⁴ and Leo XIII,³⁵ have issued decisions that contravene both the words and the spirit of the Decretum. Add to this the common teaching of theologians since St. Bonaventure, which has never been questioned by the authorities of the Church, and the conclusion is inevitable that the Decretum pro Armenis was no irreformable ruling, but its teaching may, with all due respect, be set aside.

Appendix II: All Three Impositions Not Essential to the Validity of the Sacrament of Orders

The opinion that all three of the impositions at present employed in the Latin Church constitute one moral act and, therefore, with their accompanying prayers (as partial forms) are essential to the validity of the Sacrament of Orders, is inconsistent for the following reasons. Either the first (or the second) imposition confers the sacramental grace of Holy Orders together with the sacerdotal character, or it does not. If it does, the third imposition can be no more than a solemn exemplification of the sacred character already received. If it does not, how can it be essential, since the sacerdotal character (in spite of its varied functions) is in itself simple and indivisible? This conclusion applies with still greater force to the different combinations of the ceremony of the traditio instrumentorum (paten and host, chalice containing wine) with any one of the three (or two) impositions.