Sacrament of Holy Orders, Validity

[ChristIsTheWay]

I know that sacraments can be invalid. I was wondering, what might prevent a man’s ordination to the priesthood from being valid? Under what conditions would a man’s ordination by a Catholic bishop might be found to be null, void, etc?

Would it be intent on the part of the man receiving the sacrament, like he did not really intend to become a priest?

Would possessing one of the irregularities mentioned in canon law, not telling one’s bishop, and still going through with the process of ordination, render the sacrament of holy orders invalid?

Something else entirely?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I know that sacraments can be invalid. I was wondering, what might prevent a man’s ordination to the priesthood from being valid? Under what conditions would a man’s ordination by a Catholic bishop might be found to be null, void, etc?

Would it be intent on the part of the man receiving the sacrament, like he did not really intend to become a priest?

Would possessing one of the irregularities mentioned in canon law, not telling one’s bishop, and still going through with the process of ordination, render the sacrament of holy orders invalid?

Something else entirely?

Form, Matter or Intent,

***** If the Words of Ordination were somehow incorrect and all the Bishops involved in the Ordination said the incorrect words. (usually a Bishop will have other Bishops join him in the Ordination) Remember that the exact words of the Sactament contained within the Rite of Ordination, are few.

*** **The person is not a male.

*** **The Intent of all the Bishops participating was not to actually Ordain this person to the priesthood.

 

[FrDavid96]

Form, Matter or Intent,

***** If the Words of Ordination were somehow incorrect and all the Bishops involved in the Ordination said the incorrect words. (usually a Bishop will have other Bishops join him in the Ordination) Remember that the exact words of the Sactament contained within the Rite of Ordination, are few.

*** **The person is not a male.

*** **The Intent of all the Bishops participating was not to actually Ordain this person to the priesthood.

That would apply to the ordination of a bishop.

Put all of the above in the singular for the ordination of a priest, because at a priestly ordination, only one bishop actually does the laying on of hands (even if other bishops are present, they ordinarily do not do the laying of hands).

 

[FrDavid96]

I know that sacraments can be invalid. I was wondering, what might prevent a man’s ordination to the priesthood from being valid? Under what conditions would a man’s ordination by a Catholic bishop might be found to be null, void, etc?

Would it be intent on the part of the man receiving the sacrament, like he did not really intend to become a priest?

Would possessing one of the irregularities mentioned in canon law, not telling one’s bishop, and still going through with the process of ordination, render the sacrament of holy orders invalid?

Something else entirely?

Look at canons 1040 &following.

Essentially, for validity, the candidate must be a baptized adult male (these are the necessary “prerequisites” for valid ordination), and the bishop must have the intention to ordain to the priesthood as well as follow the essential “matter and form” of the rite.

Those canons list impediments (of different degrees) which say that the Church does not feel it appropriate to ordain a man in those situations, but they do not mean that the ordination itself is invalid. It’s possible for the local bishop (or for some the Holy See) to dispense from these impediments, so they are not “invalidating”

An impediment is an “obstacle” to something–and an impediment is usually “something” as opposed to the “lack of something.” So not-being-baptized would not be an impediment as such, but it would render the sacrament invalid nonetheless.

To answer your questions a little more directly:

No, the lack of intention to be ordained on the part of the candidate does not make it invalid.

No, silence about the impediments (or ignoring them) would not make the ordination invalid, but in some cases, they might prevent the priest from exercising the priesthood.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That would apply to the ordination of a bishop.

Put all of the above in the singular for the ordination of a priest, because at a priestly ordination, only one bishop actually does the laying on of hands (even if other bishops are present, they ordinarily do not do the laying of hands).

I’ve seen only a few Ordinations here and our Bishop had the other bishops or abbot in one case also lay hands on the candidate, which may not be required. They were not called “Co-Ordainers” as with the Ordination of the Bishop. The Archbishop had “Co-Consecrators” named in the article, I did not attend the Episcopal Consecration.
It is my understanding that the person who is looking over the shoulder of the Bishop is also insuring that he reads the words from the Ritual exactly as printed and does not accidentally skip anything.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Thank you, Bro. Rich and Fr. David. It seems like the list is quite narrow of what would invalidate the sacrament.

No, silence about the impediments (or ignoring them) would not make the ordination invalid, but in some cases, they might prevent the priest from exercising the priesthood.

That is interesting. Could you elaborate? What kind of cases and what is meant by “prevent the priest from exercising the priesthood?”

Moving on up to bishops, are three bishops required to validly ordain a new bishop?

 

[AJV]

To answer your questions a little more directly:

No, the lack of intention to be ordained on the part of the candidate does not make it invalid.

Father, I’m a little confused. By “lack of intention” do you mean mere indifference, and lack of an actual or virtual intention to receive the Sacrament, or are you also including an intention against receiving the Sacrament?

 

[FrCorey]

Thank you, Bro. Rich and Fr. David. It seems like the list is quite narrow of what would invalidate the sacrament.

That is interesting. Could you elaborate? What kind of cases and what is meant by “prevent the priest from exercising the priesthood?”

Moving on up to bishops, are three bishops required to validly ordain a new bishop?

But, a bishop is not reordained, he is ordained once into the priesthood. a Bishop is Consercrated.
1 bishop to make a priest, 3 bishops to make another bishop.

 

[Cluny]

But, a bishop is not reordained, he is ordained once into the priesthood. a Bishop is Consercrated.

---

In the diction of the Byzantine (Orthodox and Catholic) churches, the word CHEIROTONIA is used for deacon, deaconess, bishop, and priest. It’s usually rendered “ordained.”

CHEIROTHESIA is used for the minor orders of subdeacon and reader.

---

1 bishop to make a priest, 3 bishops to make another bishop.

While this is the usual practice, there have been historical and legitimate exceptions to this in both the CAtholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[quiet52]

But, a bishop is not reordained, he is ordained once into the priesthood. a Bishop is Consercrated.
1 bishop to make a priest, 3 bishops to make another bishop.

There is one sacrament of Holy Orders, but three levels of ordination. A bishop has already been ordained as a priest, true, but he is also ordained as a bishop.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

But, a bishop is not reordained, he is ordained once into the priesthood. a Bishop is Consercrated.
1 bishop to make a priest, 3 bishops to make another bishop.

Some of the more recent stuff I’ve read (1970s onward) tends to use the word “ordination” while material written before that uses the word “consecrated.” I seem to remember someone discussing the why of that before.

Anyways, are three bishops required for it to be valid? I seem to remember reading elsewhere one could suffice if the situation did not permit additional bishops. I’ve heard it claimed that this happened sometimes in Communist countries.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, I’m a little confused. By “lack of intention” do you mean mere indifference, and lack of an actual or virtual intention to receive the Sacrament, or are you also including an intention against receiving the Sacrament?

The intention of the one who receives ordination has nothing to do with the actual validity of the Sacrament. It’s only the intention of the ordaining bishop which is relevant for validity.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you, Bro. Rich and Fr. David. It seems like the list is quite narrow of what would invalidate the sacrament.

That is interesting. Could you elaborate? What kind of cases and what is meant by “prevent the priest from exercising the priesthood?”

Moving on up to bishops, are three bishops required to validly ordain a new bishop?

Yes, the list of what would make ordination outright invalid is quite short.

For irregular (and thereby illicit), look at canons 1040 and following for a complete list, but in the meantime here’s an example. Let’s say that the candidate was secretly married. That wouldn’t make the ordination itself invalid but it would make it illicit and prevent him from exercising the priestly ministry, but he would still be a validly ordained priest. Canon 1044.1.1 says that the following cannot exercise orders: “a person who has illegitimately received orders while he had an irregularity precluding his receiving orders.” That tells us that even one who “should not” have been ordained but was is still a priest.

Irregularities don’t make an ordination invalid. So long as the candidate is a baptised adult male, and the bishop followed the Rite, the ordination is valid.

Yes, three bishops (at least) are required to ordain a new bishop. But historically, it has happened with only one ordaining bishop. The three bishops is more of a “safeguard” than it is a requirement for validity. If one of those bishops should later be discovered to have been not-ordained, the new bishop was still ordained by the other 2.

 

[AJV]

The intention of the one who receives ordination has nothing to do with the actual validity of the Sacrament. It’s only the intention of the ordaining bishop which is relevant for validity.

Father, could you explain why you think this is true? I was under the impression that for adults, the recipient of any Sacrament must at least intend to receive the Sacrament (understood in the sense of receiving administration of the rite of the Church, not necessarily the sacramental effects, etc.)

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, could you explain why you think this is true? I was under the impression that for adults, the recipient of any Sacrament must at least intend to receive the Sacrament (understood in the sense of receiving administration of the rite of the Church, not necessarily the sacramental effects, etc.)

Why would you think that an adult must intend to receive the Sacrament for it to be valid? This is true for Confession and Marriage, yes, but not other Sacraments.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Why would you think that an adult must intend to receive the Sacrament for it to be valid? This is true for Confession and Marriage, yes, but not other Sacraments.

If I forcibly restrain an unbaptized adult and, against his will, pour water over him while reciting the appropriate words and with the intent to baptize him, then it would seem that this would be invalid and the sacrament of baptism would not result.

 

[FrDavid96]

If I forcibly restrain an unbaptized adult and, against his will, pour water over him while reciting the appropriate words and with the intent to baptize him, then it would seem that this would be invalid and the sacrament of baptism would not result.

Yet that’s not the case. Such a thing would be wrong both spiritually and morally, but that would still be a valid baptism.

 

[AJV]

Why would you think that an adult must intend to receive the Sacrament for it to be valid?

Because it seemed to me that all the old moral theologians, based on Trent’s decree of justification and the tradition of the Church, taught that sacraments require faith on the part of an adult recipient.
For example, in Denzinger 411, Innocent III:

But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament [this is a slightly weak translation- the Latin is, “nec rem, nec characterem suscipiat sacramenti”] because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . .Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.

Yet that’s not the case. Such a thing would be wrong both spiritually and morally, but that would still be a valid baptism.

Father, please see the following link:
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article7

 

[FrDavid96]

Because it seemed to me that all the old moral theologians, based on Trent’s decree of justification and the tradition of the Church, taught that sacraments require faith on the part of an adult recipient.
For example, in Denzinger 411, Innocent III:

Father, please see the following link:
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article7

That one deserves a well-prepared response, so I’m going to take some time for thought and research before I offer a reply.

 

[FrDavid96]

Because it seemed to me that all the old moral theologians, based on Trent’s decree of justification and the tradition of the Church, taught that sacraments require faith on the part of an adult recipient.
For example, in Denzinger 411, Innocent III:

Father, please see the following link:
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article7

AJV,
I’m still chewing in this one…

Here are a few thoughts:
I can’t find anything more recent than Innocent III or St Thomas which addresses this one, but a few observations:

An infant is baptized even though consent isn’t possible–of course we know this, and the parents supply consent, but canonically (868) , an infant (at least in danger of death) can be baptized even against the parents consent. That doesn’t quite get us from point A to point B, but it does express the idea that consent isn’t strictly required for validity. (and yes, I’m keeping in mind Pope Innocent that lack of consent isn’t the same as expressed opposition).

That’s the next point. There are requirements that an adult must express consent before being baptized, but I cannot find anything which says that the lack of consent would make the Sacrament invalid–that is, nothing in current liturgical practice. That holds for both baptism and orders (our original topic here).

To look at a parallel example, we know that consent is required for marriage, and that if it is later determined that the consent wasn’t there, a declaration of nullity is the result. I’ve never heard of such for a baptism or ordination (not based on consent at least). I would think that if it were the case that lack-of-consent makes baptism invalid, we would be aware of such examples.

Now, I’m not trying to use two negatives to prove a positive. Neither of those last 2 are “proof” of course, just discussion.

Do you have anything current, or at least more recent than the above, which says that consent is necessary for validity for either baptism or orders?