Can priests ordain other priests?

[LoveOfLife1990]

I read the CAF apologist’s answer but I was not satisfied with it.

I was under the impression that priests are bishops but lack jurisdiction. I believe the differences of Holy Orders of Priest and Bishop are spelled out by St. Thomas Aquinas which states they are of the same orders but have these other differences.

I also heard that in the early Americas, there were no bishops to ordain priests to the Holy Order so the Holy See allowed priests to ordain natives and others to the priesthood.

Is any of this true?

Thanks.

 

[Bonnie]

Priests are not bishops. They cannot ordain others. Rarely - if ever - were Native Americans ordained. If they were, it would have been by a bishop. But generally Indians were considered too uneducated (or uncivilized) to be ordained. Even St. Kateri wasn’t allowed to become a nun, which she wanted.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Theologians aren’t agreed on this question. Ludwig Ott has the following to say in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 459:

[M]ost theologians, with St. Thomas, hold the opinion that a simple priest cannot validly administer these [diaconate, presbyterate], even with plenary power from the Pope. But there are grave historical difficulties with regard to this opinion: Pope Boniface IX … by the Bull “Sacrae religionis” on the 1st of February 1400, conferred on the Abbot of the Augustine Monastery of St. Osytha at Essex (Diocese of London) and his successors, the privilege of administering to those subject to them both the Minor Orders and those of the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood. The privilege was withdrawn on 6th February, 1403, on the instance of the Bishop of London. But the Orders conferred on the ground of the privilege were not declared invalid. Pope Martin V, by the Bull “Gerentes ad vos” of 16th November, 1427, conferred the privilege on the Abbot of the Cistercian Monastery of Altzelle (Diocese of Meissen) of promoting all his monks and others subject to him for the term of five years, to the higher Orders also (Sub-diaconate, Diaconate, and Presbyterate). Pope Innocent VIII, by the Bull “Exposcit tuae devotions” of 9th April, 1489,conferred on the four Proto-Abbots of the Cistercian Order and their successors the privilege of ordaining their subordinates to the Sub-diaconate and the Diaconate. The Cistercian Abbots were still using this privilege in the 17th century without hindrance.

Unless one wishes to assume that the Popes in question were victims of the erroneous theological opinions of their times (this does not touch the Papal infallibility, because an ex cathedra decision was not given), one must take it that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation. In this latter view, the requisite power of consecration is contained in the priestly power of consecration as “potestas ligata.” For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.

 

[powerofk]

All bishops are priests. But not all priests are bishops. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, and are the only ones who can ordinarily bestow the “Holy Spirit” sacraments (Confirmation and Holy Orders). Now, I know that for the Sacrament of Confirmation, the bishop can delegate his priests to be able to bestow the Sacrament on special occasions where the bishop cannot be present for the Confirmation (generally, the bishops do this for the Easter Vigil, as being at every Easter Vigil Mass is quite simply, impossible). Even so, the bishop is the indirect minister, as the priest bestows the Sacrament of Confirmation in the bishop’s stead. And if there is a sede vacante in a diocese, no Sacrament can be conferred unless a bishop from outside the diocese is brought in.

On the other hand, ordinations are done by the current presiding bishop of a diocese. Why? Because (a) only the bishop can bestow orders, and (b) deacons and diocesan priests vow obedience to the bishop (priests who are members of religious orders vow obedience to their superiors instead of the presiding bishop).

Though improbable that it would happen or even be thought of, I think there’s an infitesimally small possibility (the smallest non-zero possibility) that it might be possible in cases with sedes vacantes for the Pope (who assigns bishops to specific dioceses) to give special permission to a priest to ordain (though the priest would be acting in the stead of the Pope - the Universal bishop, and as such, the Pope himself would still be the indirect minister of the sacrament).

In other words, no - simple priests (who are not bishops) cannot minister the sacrament of Holy Orders, unless the Pope decides that he has the authority to delegate such sacrament to a specific priest for a specific situation. And the likelihood of that happening is slim to none (and slim isn’t looking good, either).

 

[mdgspencer]

The view that the power to ordain is common to both priests and bishops has been formally condemned by the Catholic Church. (by the Council of Trent’s Canon 7 of Its “Canons on the Sacraments of Orders.”)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I read the CAF apologist’s answer but I was not satisfied with it.

I was under the impression that priests are bishops but lack jurisdiction. I believe the differences of Holy Orders of Priest and Bishop are spelled out by St. Thomas Aquinas which states they are of the same orders but have these other differences.

I also heard that in the early Americas, there were no bishops to ordain priests to the Holy Order so the Holy See allowed priests to ordain natives and others to the priesthood.

Is any of this true?

Thanks.

Where on earth did you hear that about priests and bishops?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I was under the impression that priests are bishops but lack jurisdiction.

No. All bishops are also deacon and priest. All priests are also deacon. However, deacons are not priest or bishop. Priests are not bishops.

I also heard that in the early Americas, there were no bishops to ordain priests to the Holy Order so the Holy See allowed priests to ordain natives and others to the priesthood.

I have never heard that. The early priests in the US were all ordained in Europe as there were no English speaking bishops in America before Bishop Carroll. There was a French speaking bishop in Montreal and a Spanish speaking bishop in Mexico City.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The view that the power to ordain is common to both priests and bishops has been formally condemned by the Catholic Church. (by the Council of Trent’s Canon 7 of Its “Canons on the Sacraments of Orders.”)

Actually it’s Canon 6 that you refer to:

If any one 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 to priests; … let him be anathema.

But if we follow the logic of your interpretation, then priests can under no circumstances confer the sacrament of Confirmation, either. Church Law (CIC Can. 882) says they can, as extraordinary ministers. (I concede that Can. 1012 lacks this special provision for ordination, but its omission in law does not exclude the possibility in principle.)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There was a French speaking bishop in Montreal and a Spanish speaking bishop in Mexico City.

The diocese of Montreal was not founded until years after the diocese of Baltimore. The first diocese in Quebec was Quebec City, which was erected in 1674, after having been a vicariate apostolic from 1658. In any event, her first bishop was Saint Francois de Montmorency Laval…a truly extraordinary ecclesiastic.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I read the CAF apologist’s answer but I was not satisfied with it.

I was under the impression that priests are bishops but lack jurisdiction. I believe the differences of Holy Orders of Priest and Bishop are spelled out by St. Thomas Aquinas which states they are of the same orders but have these other differences.

I also heard that in the early Americas, there were no bishops to ordain priests to the Holy Order so the Holy See allowed priests to ordain natives and others to the priesthood.

Is any of this true?

Thanks.

The premises of Aquinas were wrong.

Premise one was that authority over the Eucharistic Body of Christ (sacramental) was of a higher order than authority over the Mystical Body of Christ (governance). From this, he extrapolated, incorrectly, that the episcopate, which primarily concerned governance, could not entail a higher sacramental reality than the priesthood. He posited that episcopal consecration then was an unharnessing of something that resided in the ontological character of priesthood.

Premise two was he read an explicit perfection in the 7 Orders as they existed in the Middle Ages: 4 minor orders – porter, exorcist, lector and acolyte – and 3 major orders – subdiaconate, diaconate, and priest. Of course, the four minor orders and the major order of subdeacon were suppressed by Pope Paul VI for the western Church; they were not of divine origin. The concepts of Aquinas, in this, were flawed.)

The question was definitively resolved by Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. Ordination as bishop confers its own sacramental character and the fullness of the priesthood. Paragraph 21 in Chapter 3:
For the discharging of such great duties, the apostles were enriched by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in Episcopal consecration. And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person. Therefore it pertains to the bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal body by means of the sacrament of Orders.
Aquinas was wrong. Although, there are interesting theological implications from all that had preceded the resolution of this controversy that are an interesting area for sacramental theologians and ecclesiologists to write doctoral theses and jornal articles upon, I can assure you.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

No. Bishops must ordain priests. Apostolic succession.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

All bishops are priests. But not all priests are bishops. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, and are the only ones [1] who can ordinarily bestow the “Holy Spirit” sacraments (Confirmation and Holy Orders). Now, I know that for the Sacrament of Confirmation, the bishop can delegate his priests to be able to bestow the Sacrament on special occasions where the bishop cannot be present for the Confirmation (generally, the bishops do this for the Easter Vigil, as being at every Easter Vigil Mass is quite simply, impossible) [2]. Even so, the bishop is the indirect minister, as the priest bestows the Sacrament of Confirmation in the bishop’s stead. And if there is a sede vacante in a diocese, no Sacrament can be conferred [3] unless a bishop from outside the diocese is brought in.

On the other hand, ordinations are done by the current presiding bishop of a diocese [4]. Why? Because (a) only the bishop can bestow orders, and (b) deacons and diocesan priests vow obedience to the bishop (priests who are members of religious orders vow obedience to their superiors instead of the presiding bishop).

Though improbable that it would happen or even be thought of, I think [5] there’s an infitesimally small possibility (the smallest non-zero possibility) that it might be possible in cases with sedes vacantes for the Pope (who assigns bishops to specific dioceses) to give special permission to a priest to ordain (though the priest would be acting in the stead of the Pope - the Universal bishop, and as such, the Pope himself would still be the indirect minister of the sacrament).

In other words, no - simple priests (who are not bishops) cannot minister the sacrament of Holy Orders, unless the Pope decides that he has the authority to delegate such sacrament to a specific priest for a specific situation. And the likelihood of that happening is slim to none (and slim isn’t looking good, either).

1 - Bishops are the original ministers of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Eastern Catholic Priests normatively confer Chrismation when they baptise infants. In the Latin Rite, priests may confirm by delegation or a grant of the law itself which is apart from the action of the bishop. Personally, I have confirmed far more people by the grant of the law itself than by a delegation of the bishop.

2 - The law itself (and not the bishop’s delegation) confers the faculty to confirm in the cases of a priest with legitimate canonical office receiving a person he instructed into full communion with the Roman Church. (This, and not a delegation, is the norm for confirmations that are occurring during the Easter Vigil.) Indeed any presbyter is granted the faculty by the law itself to confirm someone who is in danger of death. And, moreover, a priest who is equivalent in law to a bishop has the habitual faculty to confirm by virtue of his office…as would vicars general.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:
1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;
2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;
3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

3 - The sacramental life of the particular church continues while awaiting the nomination of a new bishop. Pastors of parishes confirm candidates of the RCIA by the grant of the law itself, quoted above. In other circumstances where there is no diocesan bishop and there are children to be confirmed, confirmation and its provision is made through the diocesan administrator, pending the nomination of the new bishop. I am not sure why it is written “no sacrament can be conferred” since all aspects of the diocese’s sacramental life assuredly continue while awaiting the nomination of a new bishop.

There are really only two situations that are problematic. If he is himself not a bishop, the diocesan administrator would need to issue a dimissorial letter and arrange with a bishop for conferral of sacred order – deacon or priest – which would be conferred by either a retired bishop or the bishop of another diocese. In such a case, the administrator requires the consent of the diocesan college of consultors to issue a dimissorial letter. And, finally, assistance would be needed (again assuming the administrator is not a bishop) for the Chrism Mass, since the sacred chrism must be consecrated by a bishop and therefore a bishop from somewhere must preside at that particular Mass.

4 - Ordinations can be done by any bishop, provided there is a dimissorial letter from whatever is granting incardination. Auxiliary bishops will not infrequently confer, for example, diaconate. For religious order/congregation priests, many times it is a bishop who belongs to the order/congregation who will confer priesthood. This latter case requires a dimissorial letter from the major superior, typically an abbot or a provincial or their equivalent, according to the governmental structure of the incardinating institute. The Rite of Ordination provides the formula for the solemn promise of obedience when the ordinand is not the subject of the ordaining bishop.

5 - As a professor of theology, I can’t imagine why this is even posited today. There is no circumstance in which a bishop is unavailable to confer priestly ordination either by coming to the candidate or the one who is to be ordained traveling to receive ordination. This was so even in the severest persecutions in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and behind the iron curtain after World War II. Even the most remote place in the world is still part of a bishops’ conference or structure of governance.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The question was definitively resolved by Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.

I am no theologian, but to me, “definitive resolution” means that the question is decided once for all; that the magisterium has spoken infallibly, and thus can never define otherwise. I do not see how the L.G. passage you quote above fits this description.

For one thing, it is my understanding that L.G. belongs to the ordinary, not the extraordinary magisterium; and that even if the ordinary magisterium can be infallible (as discussed in L.G. 25), it was not the intent of the Council Fathers to teach at this level. In that case, while the faithful must accept the teaching with “religious submission”, the magisterium could in principle modify or abandon some of the assertions it contains. Which would mean that no issue addressed by the Council was “definitively resolved.”

But even if L.G. is infallible, the passage you quote does not state that extraordinary ministers of ordination cannot be, but that the fullness of the priesthood resides in bishops. It does not define what that fullness entails, nor for that matter restrict that fullness to bishops alone, at least not explicitly.

 

[LoveOfLife1990]

1 - Bishops are the original ministers of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Eastern Catholic Priests normatively confer Chrismation when they baptise infants. In the Latin Rite, priests may confirm by delegation or a grant of the law itself which is apart from the action of the bishop. Personally, I have confirmed far more people by the grant of the law itself than by a delegation of the bishop.

2 - The law itself (and not the bishop’s delegation) confers the faculty to confirm in the cases of a priest with legitimate canonical office receiving a person he instructed into full communion with the Roman Church. (This, and not a delegation, is the norm for confirmations that are occurring during the Easter Vigil.) Indeed any presbyter is granted the faculty by the law itself to confirm someone who is in danger of death. And, moreover, a priest who is equivalent in law to a bishop has the habitual faculty to confirm by virtue of his office…as would vicars general.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:
1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;
2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;
3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

3 - The sacramental life of the particular church continues while awaiting the nomination of a new bishop. Pastors of parishes confirm candidates of the RCIA by the grant of the law itself, quoted above. In other circumstances where there is no diocesan bishop and there are children to be confirmed, confirmation and its provision is made through the diocesan administrator, pending the nomination of the new bishop. I am not sure why it is written “no sacrament can be conferred” since all aspects of the diocese’s sacramental life assuredly continue while awaiting the nomination of a new bishop.

There are really only two situations that are problematic. If he is himself not a bishop, the diocesan administrator would need to issue a dimissorial letter and arrange with a bishop for conferral of sacred order – deacon or priest – which would be conferred by either a retired bishop or the bishop of another diocese. In such a case, the administrator requires the consent of the diocesan college of consultors to issue a dimissorial letter. And, finally, assistance would be needed (again assuming the administrator is not a bishop) for the Chrism Mass, since the sacred chrism must be consecrated by a bishop and therefore a bishop from somewhere must preside at that particular Mass.

4 - Ordinations can be done by any bishop, provided there is a dimissorial letter from whatever is granting incardination. Auxiliary bishops will not infrequently confer, for example, diaconate. For religious order/congregation priests, many times it is a bishop who belongs to the order/congregation who will confer priesthood. This latter case requires a dimissorial letter from the major superior, typically an abbot or a provincial or their equivalent, according to the governmental structure of the incardinating institute. The Rite of Ordination provides the formula for the solemn promise of obedience when the ordinand is not the subject of the ordaining bishop.

5 - As a professor of theology, I can’t imagine why this is even posited today. There is no circumstance in which a bishop is unavailable to confer priestly ordination either by coming to the candidate or the one who is to be ordained traveling to receive ordination. This was so even in the severest persecutions in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and behind the iron curtain after World War II. Even the most remote place in the world is still part of a bishops’ conference or structure of governance.

Thank you for this much needed reply!

Although, I do want to be clear in my question. I was not asking if priests should ordain other priests, I was asking if priests could ordain other priests.

As a professor of theology, can you condense an answer to a Yes or No reply and then a simple explanation. Again, not implying that priests should ever ordain another priest or deacon because, as you said, there is no circumstance which a bishop would not be present.

Thank you again.

 

[Bonnie]

Although, I do want to be clear in my question. I was not asking if priests should ordain other priests, I was asking if priests could ordain other priests.

As you read more threads you’ll see that’s a common problem - people start to answer questions that weren’t asked by the OP. Sometimes, the answers are so far out in left field you wonder what the writer is on!

 

[Medical_Student]

It was been done in the past, and in the Eastern Churches also.

 

[Digitonomy]

I believe the differences of Holy Orders of Priest and Bishop are spelled out by St. Thomas Aquinas which states they are of the same orders but have these other differences.

Don Ruggero pointed out that Aquinas was wrong, but I don’t think anyone has mentioned that Aquinas was mistaken as to the three levels of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. He believed that the sacrament comprised the major orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest. We now know that the three orders are deacon, priest, and bishop. Given this, it is understandable that he would also draw mistaken conclusions about the relative powers of these orders.