Status of Origen's ordination

[Digitonomy]

I’m a little confused about Origen’s ordination, whether it was a proper sacrament or not.

Origen was ordained by the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem. However, neither was his bishop. Upon returning to Alexandria, the bishop there (Demetrius) revoked his ordination, in part because he (Demetrius) was the only one with proper authority to ordain a member of his flock, and in part because Origen’s self-castration as a teenager constituted a defect in his eligibility to become a priest, or some such thing. Feel free to correct me if I mangled the story.

So,

1. Was it then, and is it now, true that only one’s own bishop can ordain a person? And if so, is that merely a matter of canon law, or also an issue of sacramental theology?
2. To what extent is/was a self-castrated state an impediment to ordination? Again, is this canon law or sacramental theology?
3. Was Demetrius’s action essentially a declaration of nullity of the ordination, or merely a revocation of his faculties to act as a priest?

 

[Irish_Melkite]

1. Was it then, and is it now, true that only one’s own bishop can ordain a person? And if so, is that merely a matter of canon law, or also an issue of sacramental theology?

Under current Canon Law,

Can. 1015 §1 Each candidate is to be ordained to the priesthood or to the diaconate by his proper Bishop, or with lawful dimissorial letters granted by that Bishop.

§2 If not impeded from doing so by a just reason, a Bishop is himself to ordain his own subjects. He may not, however, without an apostolic indult lawfully ordain a subject of an oriental rite.

§3 Anyone who is entitled to give dimissorial letters for the reception of orders may also himself confer these orders, if he is a Bishop.

Can. 1016 In what concerns the ordination to the diaconate of those who intend to enrol themselves in the secular clergy, the proper Bishop is the Bishop of the diocese in which the aspirant has a domicile, or the Bishop of the diocese to which he intends to devote himself. In what concerns the priestly ordination of the secular clergy, it is the Bishop of the diocese in which the aspirant was incardinated by the diaconate.

Can. 1017 A Bishop may not confer orders outside his own jurisdiction except with the permission of the diocesan Bishop.

Violation of the provisions would render ordination illicit, but not invalid. At the time of Origen, Canon Law had not been reduced to its present legalistic form, but there was likely a Canon to the same effect, intended to assure the integrity of a hierach’s jurisdiction and authority.

1. To what extent is/was a self-castrated state an impediment to ordination? Again, is this canon law or sacramental theology?

From Canon Law, excerpted to include the relevant points:

Can. 1041 The following persons are irregular for the reception of orders:

5° one who has gravely and maliciously mutilated himself or another, or who has attempted suicide;

Can. 1044 §1 The following are irregular for the exercise of orders already received:

3° one who committed any of the offences mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 3, 4,5,6.

§2 The following are impeded from the exercise of orders:

1° one who, while bound by an impediment to the reception of orders, unlawfully received orders;

Can. 1045 Ignorance of irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them.

Can. 1046 Irregularities and impediments are multiplied if they arise from different causes, not however from the repetition of the same cause, unless it is a question of the irregularity arising from the commission of wilful homicide or from having actually procured an abortion.

Can. 1047 §1 If the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum, dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone.

§2 Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to the reception of orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:

1° irregularities arising from the offences mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3, if they are public;

2° an irregularity arising from the offence, whether public or occult, mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4;

3° the impediment mentioned in can. 1042, n. 1.

§3 To the Apostolic See is also reserved the dispensation from the irregularities for the exercise of an order received mentioned in can. 1041, n.3 but only in public cases, and in n. 4 of the same canon even in occult cases.

§4 The Ordinary can dispense from irregularities and impediments not reserved to the Holy See.

It would presently constitute an irregularity or impediment that would be amenable to dispensation by the local ordinary. I suspect that, at that time, it was not viewed as an impediment. If it were, it would only have caused illicitness to attach, not invalidity.

1. Was Demetrius’s action essentially a declaration of nullity of the ordination, or merely a revocation of his faculties to act as a priest?

It can be argued how it was understood in the time, but with present understanding, it would merely have the effect of denying him faculties.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Digitonomy]

That was very helpful.

I am interested in a further clarification… If there are impediments to an ordination which are not resolved through a proper and deliberate examination of the issues, are there grounds to declare the nullity of that ordination, in the same way that the sacrament of matrimony is sometimes annulled on similar gounds? Or is the approach much more conservative in this case, because it would cast doubt on the sacraments already administered by the “priest” in question?