Question about "Holy Orders" versus "Major Orders"

[runningdude]

This is another nitty-gritty technical question, a kind that I’m fond of asking .

I’m trying to understand exactly what a “Major Order” is.

I understand “Holy Orders” to be the sacrament that confers priesthood on an individual, starting with deacon, then priest and bishop. I also know that there are three “Major Orders” of the same names (deacon, priest and bishop).

My question is: does simply consecrating the sacrament of “Holy Orders” automatically confer the corresponding “Major Order”. Or does the term Major Order only refer to the ministry exercised, and is thus only conferred when Holy Orders are lawfully performed. Also can “Major Orders” be revoked, unlike “Holy Orders”, which indelibly mark a man’s (and, of course, only a man’s) soul.

For instance, if an Episcopis Vagrante (deposed bishop) performs Holy Orders, on a man, there is little doubt that a sacrament was celebrated, and the ordained man’s soul would be marked. However, this sacrament would be illicitly celebrated, and the newly ordained man would have no priestly function within the Catholic Church. Would this man be raised to the Major Order of priesthood?

Similarly, if a priest resigns his ministry and chooses to be laiticized, he would continue to have the mark of priesthood, but his lawful priestly faculties are terminated. Would he loose his Major Order?

As I said, I’m asking this out of curiosity . Have fun with the answer!

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

I am pulling some of the Canons from the Code of Canon Law and some accompanying commentary that may help to answer your questions.

Canon 1008 - By divine institution some among the Christain faithful are constituted sacred ministers through the sacrament of orders by means of the indelible character with which they are marked; accordingly they are consecrated and deputed to shephered the people of God, each in accord with his own grade of orders, by fufilling in the person of Christ the Head the functions of teaching, sanctifying and governing.

Commentary “The indelible character with which they are marked” Again it is not necessary to repeat here the content of the theological commentaries on the question of sacremental character. From a canonical viewpoint the indelible sacramental character as the following effects a] the ordained person is so configured to Christ that he acts in the person of Christ, b] the ordained person is distinguished from other non-ordained persons among the people of God; and c] once validly conferred the sacrament cannot be repeated.

“In accord with his own grade of orders.” - There is one sacrament of order. However there are three grades of order, the fullness of the priesthood being obtained in episcopal ordination. [skip 2 sentences] Each level of order has its own responsibilites for the mission of the Church. These responsibilities have been discussed by the Council and have been structured into the canons of this Code. The episcopacy and priesthood participate in the threefold office of Christ: to sanctify, to teach, to shepherd. Priests are united to their bishops in priestly dignity and together with him form a sacerdotal college. Deacons “on whom hands are laid not for priesthood but for ministry” are joined to the bishop and priests and to a degree they are authroized to excercise ministry in the service of the liturgy, of the gospel, and of works of charity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1536 - I like this definition of Holy Orders.
Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be excercised in the Church until the end of time thys it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry.

Paragraph 1554 - The last sentence
Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly particpation [episcopate and presbyterate] and the degree of service [diaconate] are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination” that is by the sarament of Holy Orders.

---

Major orders are also called degrees or grades of Holy Orders. The right to practice one’s ministry as a deacon, priest, or bishop can be revoked, but never can one lose the indeliable mark on one’s soul that one gaines from the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

I am not sure what happens when a deposed bishop ordains a man to the priesthood, I will have to research more of canon law to see if I can find an answer. And I will try to do some research on your last question.

Good questions, I had meant to get to this post yesterday but did not have time to post this. Hope this helps.

God Bless.

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m trying to understand exactly what a “Major Order” is.

I believe that the term major order was coined to distinguish these ministries from the minor orders. At that time, there was not the consensus we have today as to what consecrations or ordinations actually imprinted a mark on the soul. At least as listed by Aquinas, bishop was considered only an office, not a major order. If that was the prevailing wisdom at the time, bishop was added as a major order. Subdeacon has not been removed from the list of major orders, but the office has been mostly suppressed in the West.

I would suggest your question doesn’t have a clear answer, since the term “major order” is descriptive, without any special status in canon or liturgical law. However, if you’re going to push the issue, I would say each major order is simply an office. Both St Thomas and Paul VI recognized that the major order each held in lower esteem sacramentally (bishop for Thomas, subdeacon for Paul) was at least an office, even if they did not recognize that office as a level of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

runningdude:

My question is: does simply consecrating the sacrament of “Holy Orders” automatically confer the corresponding “Major Order”. Or does the term Major Order only refer to the ministry exercised, and is thus only conferred when Holy Orders are lawfully performed. Also can “Major Orders” be revoked, unlike “Holy Orders”, which indelibly mark a man’s (and, of course, only a man’s) soul.

Consistent with my theory that major orders are merely offices, I would say that these offices can be revoked. Most often, we hear of priests being laicized. Such priests haven’t had their souls sacramentally unmarked, they have merely lost the rights to their office.

runningdude:

For instance, if an Episcopis Vagrante (deposed bishop) performs Holy Orders, on a man, there is little doubt that a sacrament was celebrated, and the ordained man’s soul would be marked. However, this sacrament would be illicitly celebrated, and the newly ordained man would have no priestly function within the Catholic Church. Would this man be raised to the Major Order of priesthood?

No, according to the definition you’ve boxed me into.

runningdude:

Similarly, if a priest resigns his ministry and chooses to be laiticized, he would continue to have the mark of priesthood, but his lawful priestly faculties are terminated. Would he loose his Major Order?

Yes, by the same logic.

 

[valentino]

A deposed Bishhhop who ordinates a priest is not valid.He’s still a bishop though.

 

[laszlo]

According to the 1917 Canon Law the subdeaconate was considered Major order, but theologically was not considered sacrament. According to the new law there are no subdeacons.

 

[Brendan]

According to the 1917 Canon Law the subdeaconate was considered Major order, but theologically was not considered sacrament. According to the new law there are no subdeacons.

In the Latin Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches still ordain men to the Subdiaconate.

We have a Chaldean Sub Deacon in our (Latin) parish.

 

[Chatter163]

A deposed Bishhhop who ordinates a priest is not valid.He’s still a bishop though.

If he is “still a bishop,” then his orders ARE valid. His ordination would have been illicit.

 

[Spirithound]

This is another nitty-gritty technical question, a kind that I’m fond of asking .

I’m trying to understand exactly what a “Major Order” is.

I understand “Holy Orders” to be the sacrament that confers priesthood on an individual, starting with deacon, then priest and bishop. I also know that there are three “Major Orders” of the same names (deacon, priest and bishop).

My question is: does simply consecrating the sacrament of “Holy Orders” automatically confer the corresponding “Major Order”. Or does the term Major Order only refer to the ministry exercised, and is thus only conferred when Holy Orders are lawfully performed. Also can “Major Orders” be revoked, unlike “Holy Orders”, which indelibly mark a man’s (and, of course, only a man’s) soul.

For instance, if an Episcopis Vagrante (deposed bishop) performs Holy Orders, on a man, there is little doubt that a sacrament was celebrated, and the ordained man’s soul would be marked. However, this sacrament would be illicitly celebrated, and the newly ordained man would have no priestly function within the Catholic Church. Would this man be raised to the Major Order of priesthood?

Similarly, if a priest resigns his ministry and chooses to be laiticized, he would continue to have the mark of priesthood, but his lawful priestly faculties are terminated. Would he loose his Major Order?

I would say that a Major Order is nothing separate from a Holy Order.

 

[Digitonomy]

I would say that a Major Order is nothing separate from a Holy Order.

This would seem to suggest that subdeacon is a holy order.

 

[Spirithound]

This would seem to suggest that subdeacon is a holy order.

What else would you call it when the Eparch makes a man a subdeacon?

 

[runningdude]

This would seem to suggest that subdeacon is a holy order.

What else would you call it when the Eparch makes a man a subdeacon?

The subdeaconate has never been considered sacramental. To be ordained to subdeacon, one never received the laying of hands (the sacramental form for Holy Orders). Thus it was a “Major Order”, but not a “Holy Order”. Hence my question as to what exactly is a “Major Order”.

In the Eastern Rites, subdeacon is a “Minor Order” (at least according to wikipedia…), and doesn’t have this issue.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdeacon

Perhaps, Major Order was simply an umbrella term for the Holy Orders + Subdeaconate?

 

[Spirithound]

The subdeaconate has never been considered sacramental. To be ordained to subdeacon, one never received the laying of hands (the sacramental form for Holy Orders). Thus it was a “Major Order”, but not a “Holy Order”. Hence my question as to what exactly is a “Major Order”.

In the Eastern Rites, subdeacon is a “Minor Order” (at least according to wikipedia…), and doesn’t have this issue.

Perhaps, Major Order was simply an umbrella term for the Holy Orders + Subdeaconate?

Thanks for the information I just learned something!
So, what I was generally trying to say is that I don’t think a Major Order is something that can be taken away. What you were describing is just what I would call ‘faculties’. I would agree to “Major Orders” being called an umbrella term.