Priests as extraordinary ministers of Holy Orders

[Just_Lurking]

I was wondering if anyone here had more information about priests serving as extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

From Osborne’s Priesthood: A History of Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church:

It is well known, however, that in the fifteenth century there were several cases in which priests (generally abbots) were allowed to ordain, even to ordain to priesthood itself. These ordinations are not even referred to in the tridentine documents, although many of the bishops and theologians at the council might have known of such cases. In the tridentine document, the bishop is simply presented as the ordinary minister of the sacrament of order. In theory, even major scholastic theologians had allowed for “extraordinary ministers” of this sacrament; in practice, it seems, various popes had delegated such power to ordain to simple priests.

 

[stbruno]

Perhaps in History that occurred, but the tradition is for the bishops to ordain all priests and deacons. A direct handing down of the apostolic duties.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I was wondering if anyone here had more information about priests serving as extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

From Osborne’s Priesthood: A History of Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church:

It is well known, however, that in the fifteenth century there were several cases in which priests (generally abbots) were allowed to ordain, even to ordain to priesthood itself. These ordinations are not even referred to in the tridentine documents, although many of the bishops and theologians at the council might have known of such cases. In the tridentine document, the bishop is simply presented as the ordinary minister of the sacrament of order. In theory, even major scholastic theologians had allowed for “extraordinary ministers” of this sacrament; in practice, it seems, various popes had delegated such power to ordain to simple priests.

An abbot is equivalent to a Bishop, so an abbot ordaining priests would not be an issue.

 

[MusicMan]

What about an archimandrite? Would an archimandrite have the power to ordain?

 

[AJV]

An abbot is equivalent to a Bishop, so an abbot ordaining priests would not be an issue.

No it is, because he is only equivalent (in a sense) as regards the fact the he has jurisdiction. He is not equivalent in that he has the power of order- and if we look at it solely from the point of Order, then he IS a priest, and the bishop is a bishop.

 

[jdnrite01]

Br. Rich SFO said:

An abbot is equivalent to a Bishop, so an abbot ordaining priests would not be an issue.

Your information is incorrect. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled Abbot:

The Council of Trent, however, decreed that “it shall not henceforth be lawful for abbots, . . . howsoever exempted, . . . to confer the tonsure and minor orders on any but their regular subjects, nor shall the said abbots grant letters dimissory to any secular clerics to be ordained by others” [Can. et Decret. Conc. Trid. (ed. Richter et Schulte), p. 197]. From this decree of the Council it is quite clear that Abbots still have the right to confer the tonsure and minor orders, but it is equally clear that they may confer them lawfully only on their regular subjects. . . . It is a much-disputed question whether Abbots have ever been permitted to confer the subdiaconate and the diaconate. Many canonists hold that the subdiaconate, being of merely ecclesiastical institution, was formerly amounted one of the minor orders of the Church, and infer that before the time of Urban II (1099), Abbots could have given that order. But the further claim that Abbots have also conferred the diaconate cannot, apparently, be sustained, for the Bull of Innocent VIII, “Exposcit tuae devotionis” (9 April, 1489), in which this privilege is said to have been granted to certain Cistercian Abbots, makes no reference whatever to the diaconate – “Factâ inspectione in Archivis (Vaticani) . . . bulla quidem ibidem est reperta, sed mentio de diaconatu in eâdem deest.”

Their former authority to confer minor orders on their subjects lapsed with the abolition thereof.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

No it is, because he is only equivalent (in a sense) as regards the fact the he has jurisdiction. He is not equivalent in that he has the power of order- and if we look at it solely from the point of Order, then he IS a priest, and the bishop is a bishop.

The Abbot of the abby here is treated as an equal with other neighboring Bishops during Ordinations to the Priesthood and canon 370 seems to support this.

 

[AJV]

The Abbot of the abby here is treated as an equal with other neighboring Bishops during Ordinations to the Priesthood and canon 370 seems to support this.

Yes, that is what I am saying. He may have jurisdiction, he may have in certain cases, right to pontificals, but he does not have the Order*. He is not a member of the Episcopate, he is a priest* (with greater jurisdiction ergo c. 370 says that he “governs”). Do you know of any modern day abbot* who bestows the diaconate or priesthood? I do not. They have their monks and brothers ordained by a bishop

I had written a reply to the OP’s question when my PC shut down. I’ll try and re-type it later.

*I’m assuming the abbot is not ordained a bishop

 

[chevalier]

In practice, an abbot might receive episcopal donation, but excepting such a case, he does not ascend to the episcopal order.

Irish monks used to keep an ordained bishop at a monastery for the purpose of ordaining priests. The abbot was still the one in charge.

Isolated historical records may simply refer to abbots who had at some points been ordained bishops.

 

[DL82]

What about an archimandrite? Would an archimandrite have the power to ordain?

That’s a title specific to the Eastern Church, from what I understand, an Archimandrate is a bit like the Minister Apostolic for a religious order, though of course the East doesn’t have the same structure of ‘orders’ (Franciscans, Benedictines, etc.) as the Latin Church.

It could be a good way of working out what the possible limits are in this case. What happens in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the prescriptions of Trent never happened. Do abbots confer Holy Orders? If so, then it’s possible to have an extraordinary minister of Orders, even if the Church has subsequently deemed it illicit, if not, it’s probably not possible.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, that is what I am saying. He may have jurisdiction, he may have in certain cases, right to pontificals, but he does not have the Order*. He is not a member of the Episcopate, he is a priest* (with greater jurisdiction ergo c. 370 says that he “governs”). Do you know of any modern day abbot* who bestows the diaconate or priesthood? I do not. They have their monks and brothers ordained by a bishop

I had written a reply to the OP’s question when my PC shut down. I’ll try and re-type it later.

*I’m assuming the abbot is not ordained a bishop

I believe when priests were ordained at the Abbey here a few years ago the Abbot was the main ordaining minister and the local Bishop and retired Bishop were co-ordaining ministers. And in the picture the Abbot in the center wore a white mitre.

 

[AJV]

[As you know, some abbots can wear the mitre- they have right to the pontificals within the area of their jurisdiction]

I believe when priests were ordained at the Abbey here a few years ago the Abbot was the main ordaining minister and the local Bishop and retired Bishop were co-ordaining ministers. And in the picture the Abbot in the center wore a white mitre.

Br. Rich: I don’t me to be a pompous prat so please excuse my insistence on the point—but are you absolutely sure? Would it be possible for you to confirm it with the abbot? Or is it possible that that Abbot was ordained to the Episcopate?

Since a situation seems quite surprising to me given that it was a difficulty to find abbots who were granted that power earlier (i.e. by Boniface IX, Innocent VIII and Martin V) . It would also seem to go against canon 1012. If the Church was in the habit of doling out ordinations to abbots, the theological question would not have arisen in the first place.

---

Speaking of canon 1012, that does have bearing on the point of the OP. It inclines more to the side that priests cannot ordain. The 1917 Code spoke of the bishop as the *ordinary *minister - thus leaving open a possibility that there could be an extraordinary minister. The current Code does not say “ordinary minister” but only the “minister”

 

[AJV]

[As you know, some abbots can wear the mitre- they have right to the pontificals within the area of their jurisdiction]

I believe when priests were ordained at the Abbey here a few years ago the Abbot was the main ordaining minister and the local Bishop and retired Bishop were co-ordaining ministers. And in the picture the Abbot in the center wore a white mitre.

Br. Rich: I don’t me to be a pompous prat so please excuse my insistence on the point—but are you absolutely sure? Would it be possible for you to confirm it with the abbot? Or is it possible that that Abbot was ordained to the Episcopate?

Since a situation seems quite surprising to me given that it was a difficulty to find abbots who were granted that power earlier (i.e. by Boniface IX, Innocent VIII and Martin V) . It would also seem to go against canon 1012. If the Church was in the habit of doling out ordinations to abbots, the theological question would not have arisen in the first place.

---

Speaking of canon 1012, that does have bearing on the point of the OP. It inclines more to the side that priests cannot ordain. The 1917 Code spoke of the bishop as the *ordinary *minister - thus leaving open a possibility that there could be an extraordinary minister. The current Code does not say “ordinary minister” but only the “minister”

 

[Just_Lurking]

It could be a good way of working out what the possible limits are in this case. What happens in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the prescriptions of Trent never happened.

Historically speaking, the Eastern Church consistently kept to the sacramental distinction between bishop and priest, so I would imagine that only bishops were permitted to perform ordination in Eastern Orthodoxy. I think the exception in the Western Church in the Middle Ages was related to the scholastic confusion as to whether or not there was a sacramental difference between bishop and priest (see here).

 

[DL82]

“Speaking of canon 1012, that does have bearing on the point of the OP. It inclines more to the side that priests cannot ordain. The 1917 Code spoke of the bishop as the ordinary minister - thus leaving open a possibility that there could be an extraordinary minister. The current Code does not say “ordinary minister” but only the “minister””

I wonder if this is because of the availability of global transport today? There may have been a time when a missionary priest on a remote island would be given permission from a bishop thousands of miles away to ordain some local followers as priests, in the same way priests gain permission from their ordinary, on a person by person basis, to confirm catechumens (doesn’t the older priest ordain the converted mercenary in the film “The Mission”? Not that hollywood is a good basis for theological orthodoxy of course ) but that would no longer be required in the 21st century.

In hierarchical terms, I would guess that if this ever happened, the bishop authorising the conferment of Holy Orders would still be recorded as the one conferring the sacrament, and thus it wouldn’t be recorded on catholichierarchy.org or anywhere like that that a priest had done the ordaining on his behalf.

 

[AJV]

Br. Rich SFO said:

Your information is incorrect. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled Abbot:
Their former authority to confer minor orders on their subjects lapsed with the abolition thereof.

Grrr…this does not seem to be my day. The second time my post has got deleted.

The information given by the Catholic Encyclopedia relating to the examination of Cardinal Gasparri is outdated. In the 1950’s (1954 I think…I’ll have to check) the document was again examined in the Vatican Secret Archives and foudn to contain mention of the diaconate.

In any case, the two other commonly known cases which came to light after the above article was written (Boniface IX and Martin V) cannot be contested. In fact, Boniface’s decree was accidentally registered twice.

 

[jbebeau]

[As you know, some abbots can wear the mitre- they have right to the pontificals within the area of their jurisdiction]

Speaking of canon 1012, that does have bearing on the point of the OP. It inclines more to the side that priests cannot ordain. The 1917 Code spoke of the bishop as the *ordinary *minister - thus leaving open a possibility that there could be an extraordinary minister. The current Code does not say “ordinary minister” but only the “minister”

But notice that is does not say the “sole” or “only” minister. This was originally suggested when the code was being revised, but because of the precident mentioned it was left out.

This discussion touches on the very essence of the Sacrament of Orders, what is the neature of the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. There has even been debate about whether the Episcopate is a sacrament or a sacramental.

 

[rwoehmke]

An abbot is equivalent to a Bishop, so an abbot ordaining priests would not be an issue.

Right on, Br. Rich!

 

[AJV]

But notice that is does not say the “sole” or “only” minister. This was originally suggested when the code was being revised, but because of the precident mentioned it was left out.

This discussion touches on the very essence of the Sacrament of Orders, what is the neature of the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. There has even been debate about whether the Episcopate is a sacrament or a sacramental.

Yes, that’s why I said it ***inclines ***more to the proposition.

I believe it can be argued more and more in our time that the Episcopate is a sacrament because of so many small things like this. Other things would include:

• The title of the rite, for example, now speaks of “The Ordination of Bishops” not “The Consecration of Bishops” and the references are now made to the “ordaining” not the “consecrating”.
• the teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• in the Apostolic Constitution* Pontificalis Romani* Paul VI says “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” quoting Lumen Gentium no. 21.

Lumen Gentium together with Pius XII’s earlier constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (“ordination or consecration”) was sufficient enough to convince Ott to classify the teaching *Sent. certa * I suppose.

However, Sacramentum Ordinis is not unequivocal on the topic. There is a very forceful article in The Jurist (1956) by Fr. de Reeper. In it he admits that the majority of theologians consider the Episcopate a sacrament, and that the opinion is “communis” (he even quotes one saying it is “de fide”). Nonetheless he forcefully supports the idea that the Episcopate is a sacramental (a la the early Scholastics) that looses the power present in a priest. This power being ligata, bound by the law, which can be freed by Papal dispensation, or by Episcopal consecration. At the same time he says that the Episcopal consecration can be a sacrament in the case of per saltum consecrations (another debatable topic) when the rite is used on one who is not a priest.

No. 21 of Lumen Gentium itself is modified from the original (some might say more forceful) statement. More to the topic of discussion in this thread, for no. 26 the drafting commission refused requests to say the bishops only could ordain citing the historical documents.

 

[AJV]

But notice that is does not say the “sole” or “only” minister. This was originally suggested when the code was being revised, but because of the precident mentioned it was left out.

This discussion touches on the very essence of the Sacrament of Orders, what is the neature of the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. There has even been debate about whether the Episcopate is a sacrament or a sacramental.

Yes, that’s why I said it ***inclines ***more to the proposition.

I believe it can be argued more and more in our time that the Episcopate is a sacrament because of so many small things like this. Other things would include:

• The title of the rite, for example, now speaks of “The Ordination of Bishops” not “The Consecration of Bishops” and the references are now made to the “ordaining” not the “consecrating”.
• the teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• in the Apostolic Constitution* Pontificalis Romani* Paul VI says “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” quoting Lumen Gentium no. 21.

Lumen Gentium together with Pius XII’s earlier constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (“ordination or consecration”) was sufficient enough to convince Ott to classify the teaching *Sent. certa * I suppose.

However, Sacramentum Ordinis is not unequivocal on the topic. There is a very forceful article in The Jurist (1956) by Fr. de Reeper. In it he admits that the majority of theologians consider the Episcopate a sacrament, and that the opinion is “communis” (he even quotes one saying it is “de fide”). Nonetheless he forcefully supports the idea that the Episcopate is a sacramental (a la the early Scholastics) that looses the power present in a priest. This power being ligata, bound by the law, which can be freed by Papal dispensation, or by Episcopal consecration. At the same time he says that the Episcopal consecration can be a sacrament in the case of per saltum consecrations (another debatable topic) when the rite is used on one who is not a priest.

No. 21 of Lumen Gentium itself is modified from the original (some might say more forceful) statement. More to the topic of discussion in this thread, for no. 26 the drafting commission refused requests to say the bishops only could ordain citing the historical documents.