Sect. 274The Minister and Recipient of Order—its EffectsThe Minister and Recipient of Order—its Effects

I. The sole ministers of the sacrament of Order are bishops. In the Holy Scriptures we read that ordination was conferred only by the Apostles, or by those whom the Apostles had consecrated as bishops. It was the Apostles who imposed hands on the first deacons (Acts 6:6); Paul and Barnabas ordained priests for the Churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (ibid. 14:22); Timothy was consecrated bishop by St. Paul (2 Tim. 1:6); and the same Apostle instructs both Timothy and Titus as to ordaining others (1 Tim. 3, 4; Tit. 1). “What is there,” says St. Jerome, “which a bishop can do and a priest cannot do, except ordaining?” (Ep., 146, al. 85, ad Evang., n. 1.) “The order of bishops,” says St. Epiphanius, “is generative of fathers, for it begets fathers to the Church; whereas the priestly order, unable to beget fathers, begets, through the laver of regeneration, children to the Church, but not fathers or teachers” (Adv. Hæres., 75). And St. Chrysostom teaches that it is only in ordaining that bishops are superior to priests (Hom. 11, in Ep., 1 ad Tim.). So, too, the Canons of the Apostles (can. I et 2), the Apostolic Constitutions, and the ancient Councils (especially the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 398) bear witness to the same doctrine and practice. The Council of Trent condemned those who maintain that bishops “have not the power of confirming and ordaining, or that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests” (sess. xxiii. can. 7). Finally, it is fitting that only the higher officers of the Church should possess the power of ordaining those who should be her ministers (St. Thom., Suppl., q. 38, a. 1).

So far we have spoken of the sacrament of Order generally. Various questions concerning the minister of each order will be dealt with in the next section.

II. In order to receive the sacrament of Order validly, a person must be (1) of the male sex; (2) baptized; (3) he must not have the intention not to be ordained.

I. “Let women keep silence in the Churches, for it is not permitted them to speak; but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the Church” (1 Cor. 14:34, 35). “Let the women learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to use authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11, 12). And in enumerating the qualifications of a bishop, St. Paul speaks of men only. Against certain early heretics who admitted women to the priesthood, see Tertullian, De Præscr., cap. xli., and St. Epiphanius, Adv. Hæres., 79. The latter points out that if any woman could be capable of exercising the ministry, it was the Blessed Virgin: yet God conferred upon her no priestly power.

2. “Baptism,” says St. Thomas, “is the gate of the sacraments. Since Order is a sacrament, it therefore presupposes baptism.… The character impressed in baptism makes a man capable of receiving the other sacraments. Hence, he who has not received baptism cannot receive any of the other sacraments” (Suppl., q. 35, a. 3).

3. That Order is invalid when conferred against the will of a person, follows from the general doctrine of intention on the part of the recipient of a sacrament. Pope Innocent III. expressly states this in the case of the sacrament of Order (lib. iii., Decret., tit. 42, c. 3, Majores; Denzinger, Enchir., n. li.). There is a difficulty, however, with regard to the ordination of boys who have not reached the use of reason. The common opinion is that it is valid, but that those who have been so ordained are not bound by the duties of the clerical state (e.g. celibacy), unless they afterwards elect to remain in this state. See Bened. XIV., Instr. on the Coptic Rites.

III. The effects of the sacrament of Order are Grace and a Character.

1. Although this sacrament is primarily intended for the benefit of the Church at large, and not for that of the individual upon whom it is conferred, nevertheless it bestows upon him sanctifying grace, and therefore not only makes him capable of performing certain sacred duties, but also fits him for the worthy performance of them. “Neglect not the grace (χαρίσματος) which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood” (1 Tim. 4:14). “I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God (ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ) which is in thee by the imposition of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). “Just as,” says St. Thomas, “sanctifying grace is necessary for the worthy reception of the sacraments, so also is it for the worthy administration of them. And, therefore, as in baptism, whereby a person is made capable of receiving the other sacraments, sanctifying grace is given, so also in the sacrament of Order, whereby a person is ordained for the administration of the other sacraments” (Suppl., q. 35, a. 1). The Holy Ghost Himself is conferred by Ordination. “When He (Jesus) had said this, He breathed upon them (the Apostles), and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye shall forgive,” etc. (John 20:22). “If any one shall say 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” (Conc. Trid., sess. xxiii. can. 4).

2. On the character conferred by Order, see supra, p. 375. The Council of Trent condemns those who say “that a character is not imprinted by ordination, or that he who has once been a priest can become a layman” (sess. xxiii. can. 4). Such has ever been the doctrine of the Church. She has at all times refused to reordain those who have been ordained in heresy or schism, except when there has been any doubt of the validity of their former ordination. The Fourth Council of Carthage expressly forbade reordination; and St. Augustine, in his second book against Parmenian, and also in De Gestis cum Emerito (the bishop of the Donatists), strongly insists upon its unlawfulness. St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and others were supplanted by intruding bishops who administered orders; but these ordinations were recognized when the rightful bishops were re-instated. Later on, however, we find that the orders conferred by intruders were sometimes declared invalid, notably in the case of the Antipope Constantine’s ordinations, and again in those of the heretic Photius. The doubt continued (see Pet. Lomb., Sent. iv. dist. 24) until the question was discussed with great clearness by Robert Pullen, whose opinion as to the validity of heretical, intruded, and simoniacal ordinations was accepted by Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, and Scotus. See Chardon, P. ii. ch. 6.