Holy Orders — Sacramental Effects

Section 3: Sacramental Effects

1. Increase of Sanctifying Grace. Being a Sacrament of the living, Holy Orders must be received in the state of sanctifying grace (gratia prima), which it augments (gratia secunda). The Decretum pro Armenis says: “The effect [of this Sacrament is] an increase of grace, [given] in order that one may be a fit minister.”¹ The phrase “ut quis sit idoneus minister” points to an additional grace pertaining to the sacerdotal office (gratia sacramentalis).

Wherein does this special grace consist? It is a claim, based on the possession of sanctifying grace and the sacramental character, to those actual graces which render the recipient fit to administer his office. The Tridentine Council² describes this grace as the reception of the Holy Ghost per modum sacramenti.

2. The Sacramental Character. Like Baptism and Confirmation, Holy Orders imprints an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient. This is the so-called sacramental character,³ which renders repetition impossible and bars the subject from returning to the lay state. The Council of Trent expressly defines: “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,’ or that a character is not imprinted by that ordination, or that he who was once a priest can again become a layman; let him be anathema.”⁴

a) The second of these effects is called by Suarez⁵ the effectus primarius or primary object of the Sacrament, because the character is the foundation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That this is so can be demonstrated from St. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to revive (resuscitare) the grace given him by the imposition of hands. This exhortation presupposes two things: first, the existence of a form which is permanent and cannot be lost, and, secondly, the possibility of forfeiting a grace connected therewith. The form is the sacramental character; the grace, sanctifying grace.

b) For the argument from Tradition see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 79 sqq.

Although the Fathers expressly admit the validity of ordination when given by heretics, the early history of the Church offers several examples which seem practically to deny what St. Augustine and other Patristic writers positively affirm. Peter Lombard⁶ was so perplexed by the many reported cases of reordination that he declared the validity of heretical ordinations to be an “insoluble” question. St. Thomas,⁷ on the other hand, gave cogent reasons for accepting the ordinations of heretics as valid, and his view has been adopted by nearly all later theologians. Up to the close of the Middle Ages this question was an open one and hard to decide “on account of the difficulty of determining the conditions of valid ordination and legitimate succession.”⁸ To-day we are better able to solve the difficulty. There can be no doubt that in ancient times priests ordained by heretical ministers were frequently reordained on the ground that their orders were null and void. It should be noted, however, that these reordinations were often the work of ignorant, vindictive or jealous bishops. The Roman pontiffs, in condemning heretical ordinations as “irritae,” “vanae,” “inanes,” or “nullae,” in most instances probably meant that they were illicit because given or received in the state of mortal sin and by men lacking ecclesiastical jurisdiction, who could not authorize the recipient lawfully to exercise his sacerdotal powers. Not infrequently when a bishop imposed hands on a priest who had returned to the true fold from some heretical sect, he did not mean to reordain, but simply to receive him back into the fold and grant him permission to exercise the powers received in ordination.⁹

c) How is the sacramental character of Holy Orders related to that of Baptism and Confirmation? The answer to this (purely speculative) question may be gathered from what we have said in a previous volume of this treatise,¹⁰ when dealing with the sacramental character in general. The character imprinted by Holy Orders is not merely an extension or a development of the other two; it is a new quality communicated to the soul, by virtue of which the subject receives certain special faculties, the priesthood is established in the Church, and the clergy set apart from the laity.

Needless to say, the character of Holy Orders presupposes the baptismal character as its necessary foundation. As for the character peculiar to Confirmation, it is required as a condition for Holy Orders merely by ecclesiastical precept.

It is somewhat more difficult to determine the mutual relations existing between the characters of the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate, because these three are really but one, imprinted by one and the same Sacrament.

Speaking of the episcopal and the sacerdotal characters, Vasquez¹¹ expresses the opinion that the two are substantially identical, and that the only difference between them is that the former bestows greater power than the latter. This hardly solves the problem at issue, for the reception of episcopal power must be based on some intrinsic quality of the soul and consequently postulates a character distinct from that imprinted by the priesthood. Such is, indeed, the common teaching of theologians. A few (Paludanus, Coninck, Sylvester Maurus) hold that the episcopal character consists in a purely modal extension of the sacerdotal character. But this is improbable for the reason that the power of conferring ordination is so great and so clearly distinct from the ordinary powers of the priesthood that it demands a separate character.¹²

Whether the episcopal character can be imprinted on a soul that has not yet received the sacerdotal character is open to debate. Bosco, Thomassin, Martène, Schell, and other writers maintain that one need not be a priest to be capable of receiving episcopal consecration. The more common opinion, however, is that one must have received ordination to the priesthood before he can be consecrated. This last-mentioned opinion must be followed in practice. The historical arguments that have been drawn against it from certain utterances of Popes Zosimus and Celestine the First are unconvincing.¹³

3. The Bestowal of Higher Powers. Although the character imprinted by Holy Orders of itself includes certain higher powers, the latter are more correctly regarded as effects of the Sacrament, because character and power, while reciprocal, are by no means synonymous terms.

That is to say: while the sacramental character and spiritual power as a rule go hand in hand, they may exist separately. Our Lord Jesus Christ undoubtedly exercised the plenitude of spiritual power, though he had not received the sacramental character. On the other hand, bishops and priests retain the character in Heaven, though they no longer have power to consecrate, absolve, or ordain there.

The faculties attached to the sacramental character of Holy Orders vary according to the rank of the bearer. A bishop has greater powers than a priest, the priest’s powers exceed those of the deacon, and so on to the lowest degree. In a similar manner the powers attaching to the lower orders decrease by degrees. Note, however, that in the case of the subdiaconate and minor orders the power conferred by the ordination rite does not flow from the sacramental character because these orders are not Sacraments.