Does a priest need to be a deacon to be ordained?

[user1234]

In order for a man to be ordained to the priesthood, doe she have to be a deacon already? Likewise, to be consecrated a bishop, does a man have to be a priest?

 

[FrDavid96]

In order for a man to be ordained to the priesthood, does he have to be a deacon already? Likewise, to be consecrated a bishop, does a man have to be a priest?

No to both questions, but keep reading.

Strictly speaking in terms of validity only, man may be validly ordained directly to either order of priest or bishop.

However, the longstanding practice of the Church is that only deacons are considered eligible to be ordained priests and only priests are eligible to be ordained bishops. In fact, Church law requires this.

Even though ordaining directly to those 2 orders is possible and would be valid (strictly speaking) the Church does not do it.

The exception is that if the one chosen to be the next pope is not a bishop, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately. That’s the only time it would be possible to do this within Church law.

 

[user1234]

Ok. The reason I’m asking this, is that I heard the story of a saint, who was elected pope even though he wasn’t a bishop or even a priest (he might have been a deacon). I can’t remember his name, although I remember he was elected because a dove came down and rested on his head, and they took it as a sign they should elect him pope.

Pietro

 

[FrDavid96]

Certainly, the earliest bishops (popes included) were ordained directly to the order of bishop. That’s one way that we know that doing it that way is valid.

Once we move beyond the earliest centuries, there were still a very small number (maybe 3 or so) of popes who were ordained directly to bishop.

St Ambrose of Milan (though not a pope) is another example.

 

[InThePew]

No to both questions, but keep reading.

Strictly speaking in terms of validity only, man may be validly ordained directly to either order of priest or bishop.

Could you please point me in the direction of some source for this? I’m not doubting that it’s correct, just looking to learn more.

Once we move beyond the earliest centuries, there were still a very small number (maybe 3 or so) of popes who were ordained directly to bishop.

St Ambrose of Milan (though not a pope) is another example.

As is Gregory the Great who was also elected by popular acclamation

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Could you please point me in the direction of some source for this? I’m not doubting that it’s correct, just looking to learn more.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

 

[InThePew]

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Thanks for that. What about direct ordination to the priesthood?

 

[jaimeleglise]

Was it St. Ambrose?

 

[FrDavid96]

Could you please point me in the direction of some source for this? I’m not doubting that it’s correct, just looking to learn more.

It’s actually rather easy.

Most of the early bishops (let’s say before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) were ordained directly to the episcopate.

That’s a very generic answer. There were local canons and ecumenical canons which dealt with this issue (varying over time and location), so the early 4th century is just a very approximate time-period. As a generalization, most bishops who died before 300 were not first ordained to the presbyterate.

As is Gregory the Great who was also elected by popular acclamation

exactly

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for that. What about direct ordination to the priesthood?

Same answer.

Yes, it is possible and it would be valid. However, the Church very strictly does not do it that way (as a matter of discipline, not an issue of validity).

Again, we look to the early centuries. It took quite a long time for the practice of ordaining in steps (only deacons to the presbyterate, etc.) to become firmly established in the Church’s laws.

As a followup to my last post: there is nothing in the Council of Nicaea about this subject. I’m merely using that as a marker in the historic timeline.

 

[Brendan]

Could you please point me in the direction of some source for this? I’m not doubting that it’s correct, just looking to learn more.

As Fr David noted, look to the Apostles. They were endowed by Christ with Episcopal Orders.

They later instituted both the Presbyterate and the Diaconate

Any claim that Episcopal Orders is dependent first on having the marks of Sacerdotal or Diaconal Orders would be a claim that the Apostles were not truly so marked.

 

[FrDavid96]

As Fr David noted, look to the Apostles. They were endowed by Christ with Episcopal Orders.

They later instituted both the Presbyterate and the Diaconate

Any claim that Episcopal Orders is dependent first on having the marks of Sacerdotal or Diaconal Orders would be a claim that the Apostles were not truly so marked.

It is true. No doubt about it.

However, the counter-argument is that Christ Himself had the authority to do as He chose and so to effectively “dispense” them from the need to be ordained deacons then priests before bishops. For that reason, it’s a stronger position to not-address the Apostles themselves but rather to start with the 2nd generation (so to speak) of bishops and likewise later Church practice (through the first 3 or 4 centuries).