The Sacrament of Order

by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., 201 Otter Rock Drive, Greenwich, Conn. - 06830. U.S.A.

Edited by Prakash Mascarenhas. From the book "The Post Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders."

                    Considerable perplexity arises from the fact that while the Sacrament of Order is one, it is conferred in stages. In the Western Church these are divided into seven - the "Minor Orders" of acolyte, exorcist, lector and doorkeeper; and the "Major Orders" of the subdeaconate, deaconate and priesthood.

                    Almost at once, confusion enters the picture, for some of the ancient texts list six, others eight and nine major and minor orders. In the Greek Church, the rites of which are considered unquestionably valid, subdeacons are listed in the "Minor" category.

                    In all the Churches that recognise Orders as a Sacrament (the Protestants - which category includes the Anglicans - do not) we find both Deacons and Priests are "ordained" and that the Episcopate or rank of Bishop is included under the heading of Priests; it is in fact called the "summum Sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood," and it is through the Bishop that the Apostolic Succession is passed on. Higher ranks in the Church such as Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope are considered administrative and not Sacramental. Thus once a Pope is elected he is installed with appropriate ceremonies, but not with a sacramental rite. (Sacramentally speaking, there is no higher rank than that of Bishop. Such a statement in no way denies the Primacy of Peter.)

                    For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that an Ordinand (an individual about to be ordained) to any order automatically is the recipient of all the graces pertaining to a lesser order. (This is technically called "per saltem" or "by jumping.") Thus an individual consecrated to the priesthood automatically receives - if he has not already received them - all the power and graces that relate to the lesser orders such as exorcist or deacon. The post-Conciliar Church has (as did the Protestants,) abolished many of the minor orders, but if this Church validly ordains priests, then these priests automatically receive the powers of exorcism, etc., which pertain to the lower and "abolished" orders.

                    However, when it comes to Bishops, almost all theologians hold that they must be already ordained priests, lacking which the episcopal rite conveys absolutely nothing. The Church has never infallibly pronounced on this issue and the contrary opinion - namely that the Episcopal rite automatically confers on the recipient the character of priestly orders - exists. Cardinal Gasparri in "De Sacra Ordinatione," and Lennertz in his "De Sacramento Ordinis" both hold that the recipient of Episcopal Orders automatically receives - if he does not already have it - the powers of the priesthood.

                    The issue is discussed in "Anglican Orders and Defect of Intentions," (Francis Clark, Longmans & Green, London, 1956.) So critical is the Apostolic Succession that it is the customary practice of the Church to ordain a bishop with three other bishops. The rule is not absolute, for validity only requires one, and innumerable examples of where this custom has been by-passed can be given.

                    It is of interest that many traditional theologians have questioned whether the elevation of a Priest to the rank of Bishop is a sacramental or juridical act. The point is important because

It implies that an ordinary priest has the ability (not the right) to ordain (make other priests,) and because,
If the Episcopal rite involves no "imprinting of a sacramental character," the question of validity can hardly arise.

However, in so far as the ordination of Bishops has a "form" and a "matter," the greater majority hold that it is in fact a Sacrament - or rather that it is the completion of the Sacrament of Orders and confers on the ordinand the fullness of priestly powers and functions.

Pope Leo XIII clearly taught that such is the case. To quote him directly: "the episcopate, by Christ's institution, belongs most truly to the Sacrament of Orders and is the priesthood in the highest degree; it is what the holy fathers and our own liturgical usage call the high priesthood, the summit of the sacred ministry." (Apostolicae Curae.)

Distinctions Between Priest and Bishop.

                    In the traditional ordination rite of the priest the Bishop instructs him that his function is "to offer sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize." (In the post-Conciliar rite this instruction has been deleted, and he is consecrated to "celebrate" the liturgy which of course means the Novus Ordo Missae.)

                    Such an instruction is not all-inclusive, for it mentions nothing of the power of absolution - its intention being to specify the principal function of the priest. The power to absolve is however clearly specified in other parts of the traditional rite. (Again, the post-Conciliar rite has abolished the prayer that specifies this power).

                    Bishops however have certain powers over and beyond those of the priests. According to the Council of Trent, "Bishops, who have succeeded to the position of the Apostles, belong especially to the hierarchical order; they are set up, as the same Apostle (St. Paul) says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God; they are superior to priests, and confer the sacrament of Confirmation, ordain ministers of the Church, and do several other functions which the rest who are of an inferior order have no power to perform." (Denzinger 960) Again, the seventh canon on the Sacrament of Orders says: "if anyone says the bishops are not superior to priests, or have not the power of confirming and ordaining, or have that power but hold it in common with priests... let him be anathema!" (Denzinger 967)

                    However, as Father Bligh in his study on the history of Ordination states: "from the practice of the Church it is quite certain that a simple priest can in certain circumstances (now not at all rare) administer Confirmation validly, and it is almost certain that with Papal authorisation he can validly ordain even to the deaconate and priesthood.

                    "The Decree for the Armenians drawn up by the Council of Florence in 1439 says that a Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and the ordinary minister of Ordination - which would seem to imply that in extra-ordinary circumstances the minister of either sacrament can be a priest.

                    "Since the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera of 14th September 1946, it has been the common law of the Latin Church that all parish priests may confer the sacrament of Confirmation on their subjects in danger of death. And there exist four Papal Bulls of the fifteenth century which empowered Abbots, who were not Bishops, but simple priests, to ordain their subjects to Sacred Orders; two of them explicitly give power to ordain even to the priesthood." (John Bligh, S.J. "Ordination to the Priesthood," Sheed & Ward, New York, 1956.)

                    Some have held that such ordinations were invalid because the popes were acting "under duress," but the fact remains that, at least with regard to the Deaconate, these powers were exercised for centuries without papal objection.
In the Greek and other "Eastern" Churches, the priest is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and the Bishop is the Ordinary minister of Ordination. Canon Law (1917) states that "the ordinary minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop; the extra-ordinary minister is one, who, though without episcopal character, has received either by law or by a special indult form the Holy See power to confer some orders." (CIC 782 & 951)

                    Now the term "extra-ordinary" minister is important, for it is commonly used with regard to the priest who administers the Sacrament of Confirmation; in the post-Conciliar Church it is used to describe lay-persons who distribute the bread and wine. And so it seems necessary to conclude that a simple priest can be given by Apostolic indult certain powers, or, since no additional ceremony is involved, the right to exercise certain powers that normally are not considered appropriate to his status. One could draw a parallel with the Sacrament of Baptism which any Catholic can administer, but which in fact is usually administered by a priest.

                    How can we resolve these seeming conflicts? One solution is to consider the right of conferring Orders as juridical. When Pope Pius XII gave permission for parish priests to become extraordinary ministers of Confirmation he did not confer this power by means of a sacramental rite, but through the media of a mandate. Thus, one could hold that by his ordination every priest receives the power to confirm and ordain, but cannot utilise this power without episcopal or papal authorisation.

                    As Father Bligh says, "by his ordination to the priesthood a man receives no power whatever to confirm or ordain..." He, however, is stamped with an indelible character so that "he is a fit person to whom episcopal or Papal authority can communicate power when it seems good."

                    On the assumption that the matter is jurisdictional, several questions can be raised. Did Christ our Lord Himself lay down the rule that in normal - or perhaps all - circumstances only bishops should confirm and ordain? Was this rule laid down by the Apostles in virtue of the authority received from Christ? Is the rule sub-Apostolic, which would make it part of ecclesiastical law rather than revelation?

                    Further the necessity for episcopal authorisation can be conceived of as arising either from an ecclesiastical law restricting the priest's valid use of his power, or from a Divine Law requiring that a priest who exercises these powers must receive a special authority or some kind of jurisdiction from a bishop or the Pope.

                    The Council of Trent deliberately left the answer to these questions open and undecided. In its sixth Canon on the Sacrament of Order it simply states: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy, instituted by divine ordination and consisting of bishops, priests and deacons, let him be anathema!"

                    Before adopting the phrase "by divine ordination" the Council considered the phrases "by divine institution" and "by a special divine ordination," but rejected them because it did not wish to decide the question. Reference to the practice of the early Church suggests that normally the sacraments were administered either by the bishop or by priests explicitly delegated by the bishops. Bligh quotes De Puniet as saying that priests in Apostolic times administered the churches under the direction of the Apostles and almost certainly enjoyed the fullness of sacerdotal power which included the power of ordination.

                    St. Jerome (Hieronymus) taught that at his ordination, the priest received the power to ordain which was immediately restricted ecclesiastically. Even in mediaeval times, after the bishops ordained a priest, the other clergy present would place their hands on the head of the ordinands and repeat the consecratory prayer - thus acting as "concelebrants" in the rite. In current practise, the priests bless the ordinands by placing their hands on their heads, but no longer repeat the consecratory form. The point is important for under such circumstances, it is only the bishop who ordains. The post-Conciliar Church retains this practice.

Is the Bishop Ordained or Consecrated?

The question as posed is illegitimate, for Pope Pius XII uses both terms inter-changeably in his Sacramentum Ordinis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 28th January 1958.) The real issue is whether or not raising a Priest to the rank of Bishop involves a sacramental act.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (1908) "most of the older scholastics were of the opinion that the episcopate is not a sacrament; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e.g., Billot, "De Sacramentis"), thought the majority of theologians hold it as certain that the Bishop's ordination is a sacrament." (The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Appleton, 1911, Vol. XI, section on "Orders.")

Whatever the answer, two points are made:

The Council of Trent defines that Bishops belong to a divinely instituted hierarchy, that they are superior to priests, and that they have the power of Confirming and Ordaining which is proper to them." (Session XXIII, c. iv, can. 6, 7)
Pope Leo XIII, as already noted, clearly teaches that the episcopate "belongs most truly to the Sacrament or Order," and Pope Pius XII in defining both the Matter and the Form to the used in the rite implicitly teaches that it is, indeed, a sacramental act.

The position taken in this paper is that while the issue as to whether a simple priest receives the power (not the right) to ordain remains open, the episcopate remains part of the Sacrament of Order. Despite the fact that the power to ordain is a lesser power than that of offering the propitiatory sacrifice of the living and the dead (i.e. the Mass), and despite the fact that the priest may indeed already have this power, one can certainly hold that special graces are required of a Bishop properly to perform his functions, and that these graces are transferred by means of a sacramental act.

It is thus that the Bishop receives within this sacramental what is called the "summum sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood." Again, it should be stressed that in the ordination of priests, regardless of earlier practise, both in the traditional and the post-Conciliar practise, it is only the Bishop who repeats both the matter and the form. Consequently, when a Bishop ordains, the "validity" of his own orders and of his sacramental act remain essential.

END

The Post-Conciliar Rite of Orders

IS THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION INTACT?
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

It is well known that the post-Conciliar Church has, in accord with the "Spirit of Vatican II," and with the desire of "updating" her rites, made changes in her manner of administering all the sacraments. Few would deny that the intention behind the changes was to make the Sacraments more acceptable to modern man and especially to the so-called "separated brethren." Catholics have reacted to the changes in a variety of ways. Most have accepted them without serious consideration - after all, they emanated from a Rome they always trusted. Others consider them "doubtful," or have completely denied their efficacy; and as a result refuse to participate in them. Much of the controversy has centered around the new Mass, or Novus Ordo Missae, with the result that the other Sacraments - especially those which depend on a valid priesthood - have been ignored.^[1] The present book will discuss the changes made in Holy Orders, along with those made in the various Sacraments dependent upon the priesthood. We shall initiate our study with a restatement of traditional Catholic theological principles relative to all the Sacraments.

According to the teaching of the Church, a Sacrament is a sensible sign, instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to signify and to produce grace. There are seven Sacraments: Baptism, Marriage, Holy Orders, Eucharist, Absolution (Penance or Confession), Confirmation and Extreme Unction. I have listed them in this order because Baptism and Marriage do not strictly speaking, require a priest.^[2] Holy Orders are administered by a Bishop and the remaining Sacraments require priestly "powers" to be confected or administered.

Sacramental theology by definition dates back to Christ and the Apostles.^[3] It has "developed" over the centuries, which to paraphrase St. Albert the Great, does not mean it has "evolved," but rather that our understanding of it has become clearer as various aspects were denied by heretics and the correct doctrine affirmed and clarified by definitive decisions of the Church. The end result can be called the traditional teaching of the Church on the Sacraments.

The rise of Modernism gave rise to a different and Modernist view of Sacramental Theology, one which holds that the Sacraments are not so much fixed rites handed down through the ages, as "symbols" that reflect the faith of the faithful - a faith which is itself a product of the collective subconscious of those brought up in a Catholic milieu.^[4] The traditional Sacraments, according to this view, reflected the views of the early Christians. As modern man has progressed and matured, it is only normal that his rites should also change. It is for the reader to decide how much such opinions have affected the changes instituted in the Sacraments in the wake of Vatican II.

"Who but the Lord," St. Ambrose asks, "is the author of the Sacraments?" St. Augustine tells us "It is divine Wisdom incarnate that established the sacraments as means of salvation," and St. Thomas Aquinas states that "As the grace of the sacraments comes from God alone, it is to Him alone that the institution of the sacrament belongs." Thus it is that the Apostles did not regard themselves as authors of the Sacraments, but rather as "dispensers of the mysteries of Christ" (1 Cor. IV:1).There is some debate as to whether Confirmation and Extreme Unction were established by Christ directly or through the medium of the Apostles. The issue is of no importance, for Revelation comes to us from both Christ and the Apostles. The latter, needless to say, would hardly go about creating sacraments without divine authority.

The early Church Fathers, mostly concerned with defining doctrine, expended little effort on defining or explaining the sacraments. One should not however assume that they lacked understanding. Consider Justin Martyr (114-165) who made it clear that the effect of Baptism was "illumination" or grace. And again St. Iranaeus (+ 190) who, in discussing the "mystery" of the Eucharist, noted that "When the mingled cup [i.e., wine mixed with water] and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ..." In these two Fathers we see the essential theology of the sacrament - the joining of "form" and "matter," (though other terms were used) and the conveyance of grace. The earliest Church Fathers placed the Sacraments among the "mysteries" (from the Greek mysterion)^[5] without clearly specifying the number. It was Tertullian (circa 150-250) who first translated this term into Latin as "sacramentum," though once again, not in an exclusive sense.^[6] It is of interest to quote him in order to show that he was familiar with the essential features of sacramental theology: "All waters, therefore... do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself, and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying... It is not to be doubted that God has made the material substance, which He has disposed throughout all His products and works, obeying Him also in His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial."^[7]

From this point on the term sacrament was increasingly used - often interchangeably with mystery. St. Ambrose (333-397) clearly provides us with the first treatise dedicated exclusively to the subject of what he calls sacraments, specifically to those of Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist. He made no attempt at a universal definition, but clearly understood the principles involved as is shown by his statement that "the sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ." It is with St. Augustine (354-430) that the first attempt is made to define clearly the term as "a sign," or "signs," which, "when they pertain to divine things, are called Sacraments." Elsewhere he states that they are called Sacraments because in them one thing is seen, and another is understood. He still uses the word as virtually equivalent to Mysteries and speaks of Easter as well as the allegory of sacred numbers which he sees in the twenty-first chapter of John's Gospel as sacraments. Marriage, Ordination, Circumcision, Noah's Arc and, the Sabbath and other observances are also so labeled. Perhaps his most important contribution to sacramental theology was the distinction he drew between the Sacrament as an outer sign and the grace that this sign conveyed. The former without the latter, as he indicated, was useless.^[8]

The next person to discuss the Sacraments was Isidore of Seville (560-636) who functioned in this area as an encyclopaedist rather than as an individual who provided us with further clarification. His discussion is limited to Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of the Lord. Next was Gratian (1095 -1150) who made the first attempt to bring all the canon laws of the Church together. In his Concordia Discordantium Canonum he quotes the various definitions we have reviewed, and lists as examples the sacraments of Baptism, Chrism (Holy Orders) and the Eucharist. This collection became a standard source and Roland Bandinelli, who later became Pope Alexander III, (pope 1159-1181) wrote a commentary on this text in which he lists the Sacraments as Baptism, Confirmation, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood (in which he treats of the Consecration of Priests), Penance, Unction and Matrimony. This commentary itself became a standard text and a pattern for Peter Lombard's Commentary on the Sentences.^[9]

Finally, it is Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) who reviewed the subject and provided us with a definition which most closely resembles that officially accepted today. In his text De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, he defines a Sacrament as "a corporeal or material element sensibly presented from without, representing from its likeness, signifying from its institution, and containing from sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace." He also states, "add the word of sanctification to the element and there results a sacrament." He further distinguished between those Sacraments essential for salvation, those "serviceable for salvation because by them more abundant grace is received, and those which are instituted that through them the other sacraments might be administered [i.e., Holy Orders]." We shall conclude this historical discussion with three definitive decisions of the Church which are de fide, that is, "of faith."

"A Sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification" (Catechism of the Council of Trent)."If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or less than seven, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony, or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and strictly speaking a Sacrament: let him be anathema" (Canon of the Council of Trent, Denz. 844)."If anyone say that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema." (Canon of the Council of Trent).

The concept of "Form" and "Matter" - the words used and the material over which they are said (as for example the Words of Consecration said over wine mixed with water in the Mass) were borrowed from the Hylomorphic theory of Aristotle, and introduced into Catholic theology by either William of Auxerre or St. Albert the Great. The terminology was new but the doctrine old. For example, St. Augustine used such phrases as "mystic symbols," and "the sign and the thing invisible," "the word and the element."^[10] Thus it is that, while the proper words and the material vehicle of the Sacraments date back to Christ, debates as to proper form and matter only occur after the 13th century. It should be clear that these concepts help to clarify, but in no way change the principles enunciated by the earliest Church Fathers. The manner in which they clarify will become clear when we consider the individual sacraments. With regard to validity, the Church clearly teaches that "A Sacramental form must signify the grace which it is meant to effect, and effect the grace which it is meant to signify."

Not absolutely, but "relatively absolutely." The present study cannot discuss in detail the Catholic principle that "Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus" - that is "outside the Church there is no salvation."^[11] Suffice it to say that the Church understands by this that, apart from the invincibly ignorant, salvation is normally dependent upon being in the Catholic Church; and that the normal means of entering this Church is Baptism.^[12] The other Sacraments are not absolutely necessary, but are required in so far as one is a member of the Church and in so far as they are the normal means of grace instituted by Christ. Thus one must confess and receive the Eucharist at least once a year - providing a priest is available.^[13] Now clearly Christ who established the Church, also established the other Sacraments as normal means of grace. Not to avail ourselves of them when they are available is as absurd as not seeking medical assistance when one is ill.

Many so-called "conservative Catholics" are convinced of the validity of the post-Conciliar rites because of the manifold graces they believe they receive from them. Even if we grant that they are not subject to self-deception in this area, such an argument is useless in defending validity, for it is a constant teaching of the Church that in the reception of the Sacraments, grace enters the soul in two ways. The first is ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work performed. The second is called ex opere operantis, which is to say, by virtue of the disposition of the recipient. Thus, one who participates in good faith in false sacraments can indeed receive grace - but only that grace that comes from his own good disposition, and never that much more ineffable grace which derives from the Sacrament itself.

It has also been argued that, providing the disposition of the recipient is proper, the deficiencies of a sacrament are "supplied" by the Church. Such an argument is patently false, for it implies that no matter what the minister does, the Church automatically makes up for the defect. (It would also declare all the Protestant rites as being of equal validity to those of the Church.) It is possible that Christ Himself may make up for the defect in the case of those who are "invincibly ignorant," but the Church can in no way make up such a defect. As A.S. Barnes, the admitted authority on Anglican Orders says: "God, we must always remember, is not bound by the Sacraments which He Himself has instituted - but we are."

The phrase ex opere operato was used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (d. 1205). It was subsequently adopted by Pope Innocent III as well as St. Thomas Aquinas to express the constant teaching of the Church to the effect that the efficacy of the action of the Sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ's institution and promise. The meaning of the phrase should be clear. The Sacraments are effective regardless of the worthiness of the minister or of the recipient. What this means is that the Sacraments are effective, even if the priest is himself in a state of mortal sin (it would be sacrilegious for him to administer them in a state of mortal sin - should a priest not be able to get to confession before confecting a Sacrament, he should at least make an act of contrition), and even if the recipient's disposition is not perfect (he also commits sacrilege if he receives them in a state of mortal sin - apart from Penance of course). This is because the priest is acting on the part of Our Divine Master, Jesus Christ, and the Sacraments have their efficacy from their divine institution and through the merits of Christ. The Sacraments and the priests who administer them function as vehicles or instruments of grace and are not their principle cause.^[14] It is Christ who, through the priest, forgives sins or confects the Eucharist, etc., etc.

Unworthy ministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the efficacy of signs ordained by Christ to produce grace ex opere operato. But what of ex opere operantis? Obviously, there must be no deliberate obstacle to grace on the part of the recipient. These principles follow from the nature of Grace. Grace is God's free gift to us (whether in or outside the channels which He established), but man always remains free to refuse or to place obstacles in the way of God's grace. The recipient's disposition need not be perfect - indeed, only God is perfect. It must, as is discussed in greater detail below, be appropriate.

A further principle follows: the priest and the Church must follow the pattern which Christ established in instituting a special vehicle of grace. As St. Ambrose said: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery (Sacrament) otherwise than Christ delivered it." And as the Council of Trent states, "If anyone saith that the received and approved rites of the Catholic church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted by the ministers, or be changed by every pastor of the churches into other new ones; let him be anathema."

The Church, of course, has a certain latitude with regard to the manner in which the Sacraments are administered, and, as we shall see below, can change the manner of their administration and the ceremonies that surround them. However, she cannot make a Sacrament be other than what Christ intended, and she cannot create new Sacraments. The acceptance of the traditional Sacraments in their traditional form is part of that obedience that the faithful Catholic (which obviously should include members of the hierarchy^.^[15]) owes to Christ through tradition. As evidence to this anti-innovative attitude consider the following letter of Pope Innocent I (401-417) addressed to the Bishop of Gubbio:"If the Priests of the Lord wish to preserve in their entirety the ecclesiastical institutions, as they were handed down by the blessed Apostles, let there be no diversity, no variety in Orders and Consecrations... Who cannot know, who would not notice that what was handed down to the Roman Church by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is preserved even until now and ought to be observed by all, and that nothing ought to be changed or introduced without this authority..."As St. Bernard says, "it suffices for us not to wish to be better than our fathers."

All that has been said so far being granted, it behooves us to ask just what is required for a sacrament to be valid. The Church's answer is usually given under several headings. There must be a proper minister - and where the minister is a priest, he must be validly ordained; the minister must have the proper intention; there must be proper "form" and "matter"; the recipient must be capable of receiving the sacrament. If any one of these are faulty or absent, the Sacrament is not effective. Each of these requirements will be considered sequentially.

THE MINISTER: For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, providing that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form with the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ intended. However, only a Bishop, Priest, or in some cases a Deacon, can administer Baptism in a solemn manner.^{^[16]}^[16] In marriage the contracting parties are the ministers of the Sacrament, because they make the contract and the Sacrament is the contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament.^[17] All the other Sacraments require a duly ordained minister by which term Catholics understand a priest.

INTENTION: The Minister must have the proper intention. That is, he must intend to do what the Church intends, or what Christ intends (which is in fact the same thing). Intention is usually seen as having both an external and internal aspect. The external intention is provided to the minister by the rite he uses and it is assumed that he intends what the rite intends. His internal intention is another matter and can never be known with certainty unless he exposes it or makes it known. The minister can, by withholding his internal intention, or having an internal intention that contradicts that of the rite, obviate or prevent the effect of a Sacrament. The Church, recognizing that it can never know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as his external intention, (the intention which the traditional rite provides by its very wording) unless he himself informs the Church otherwise.^[18]

PROPER FORM AND MATTER: It is well known that the manner of administering the Sacraments was confided by Christ to His Church. We know that Christ specified certain sacraments in a precise manner - in specie to use the theological term. Such is the case with both Baptism and the Eucharist. With regard to the other sacraments, it is generally held that He only specified their matter and form in genere - in a general way, leaving to the Apostles the care and power of determining them more precisely. "Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g., to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders."^[19]

Now the Church has been around for a long time, and has long since determined the essential components of the Sacraments - almost certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of tradition and cannot be changed at will - not by any individual, not by a council, and not even by a pope. This principle was made clear by Leo XIII in his Bull Apostolicae curae: The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or "ceremonial" parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited..."

"It is well know that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments." (Pius X, Ex quo nono).It [the Council of Trent] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them..." (Session, XXI, Chapter 2, Council of Trent).The crux of the debate about "substance" revolves around the issue of "meaning." Thus, as we shall see, in some of the Sacraments, the form used varied over the centuries, and in the different (traditionally recognized) Churches. But providing the "meaning" of the form was not changed, the words used substantially carried the same import that Christ intended. This is clearly the teaching of St. Thomas:"It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament is invalid" (Summa III, Q. 60, Art. 8).

Sacramental terminology can be confusing. "The substance of the form" refers to the words that convey its meaning. "The essential words of the form" are those words on which the substance depends. Theologians will argue about what the essential words are, but all agree on the need to maintain the integrity (i.e. the completeness) of the received forms.^[20] Again, a form may contain the "essential words" but be invalidated by the addition of other words that change its meaning. As the Missale Romanum states, "if words are added which do not alter the meaning, then the Sacrament is valid, but the celebrant commits a mortal sin in making such an addition" (De Defectibus).

THE RECIPIENT: The previous reception of Baptism (by water) is an essential condition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. In adults, the valid reception of any Sacrament apart from the Eucharist requires that they have the intention of receiving it. The Sacraments impose obligations and confer grace, and Christ does not wish to impose those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man. There are certain obvious impediments to reception of the Sacraments, such as the rule that women cannot be ordained. Finally, according to ecclesiastical law, a married person cannot receive ordination (in the Western Church), and a priest who has not been laicized cannot enter the state of Matrimony.^[21] There are various impediments to priestly ordination for men such as age or blindness. Obviously, someone who is blind cannot say Mass without risk of spilling the consecrated species. The reason the Sacrament of the Eucharist is excepted from this rule is that the Eucharist is always, and always remains, the Body of Christ, regardless of the state of the recipient.

In general, attention on the part of the recipient is not essential. Obviously inattention is disrespectful of the sacred and an intentional indulgence in "distractions" would involve a proportional sin. In Penance however, because the acts of the penitent - contrition, confession, and willingness to accept a penance in satisfaction are necessary to the efficacy of the rite, a sufficient degree of attention to allow for these is necessary. Obviously, the recipient of a Sacrament would sin gravely if he received the sacrament (Penance apart) when not in a state of grace, or sin proportionally if he received them in a manner not approved by the Church. Having enumerated these principles, we shall discuss some of the other Sacraments, with the obvious exception of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist which has been covered in a previous book.

The Church, being a loving mother, desires and indeed requires, that the faithful never be in doubt about the validity of the sacraments. For a priest to offer doubtful Sacraments is clearly sacrilegious and where this doubt is shared by the faithful, they also are guilty of sacrilege. As Father Brey states in his introduction to Patrick Henry Omlor's book Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new All-English Canon: "In practice, the very raising of questions or doubts about the validity of a given manner of confecting a sacrament - if this question is based on an apparent defect of matter or form - would necessitate the strict abstention from use of that doubtful manner of performing the sacramental act, until the doubts are resolved. In confecting the Sacraments, all priests are obliged to follow the 'medium certum.' - that is, "the safer course."^[22] Similarly, Father Henry Davis, S.J.:"In conferring the Sacraments, as also in the consecration in Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI [1670-1676]. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted. It would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid sacraments."^[23]

It is well known that the post-Conciliar Church changed all the Sacraments. While the changes in the Mass were discussed in a previous book^[24], they will be briefly reviewed before proceeding to consider the changes in the other Sacraments that either affect the priesthood or depend upon the priesthood for their confection. THE MASS The Novus Ordo Missae or new mass was promulgated on April 3, 1969, the Feast of the Jewish Passover. The traditional rite had been divided into two parts, "the Mass of the the Catechumens" and "the Mass of the Faithful." The new rite was also divided into two parts, "the Liturgy of the Word," and "the Liturgy of the Eucharist." This change was in itself significant, for the term "Word," which was traditionally applied to the Sacred Species - the "Word made flesh," was now tied to the reading from Scripture. In similar fashion, the second part of the new rite stressed "Eucharist" which means thanksgiving - for indeed the new rite was merely a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." All references to it being an immolative sacrifice "for the living and the dead" or the "unbloody representation of the sacrifice of the cross" have been deleted. The net result is a service which is in no way offensive to Protestants - and indeed, the Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine, a major Lutheran authority, have publicly acknowledged their willingness to take part in the "Catholic eucharistic celebration" because it allows them "to use these new eucharistic prayers with which they felt at home." And why did they feel at home with them? Because they had "the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of the Sacrifice."^[25] The net result then is a rite which is at best, dubiously Catholic. Closer examination tends to support the suspicion that it is indeed Protestant in outlook. Consider the definition initially given to the rite by Paul VI who is responsible for promulgating it with seemingly Apostolic authority:"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathered together, with a priest presiding, in order to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst (Matt. 1:20)."

The definition is extraordinary because it declares that Christ is no more present when the Novus Ordo Missae is said, then he is when I gather my children for evening prayers. Moreover, whereas in the traditional rite it is clearly the priest alone who celebrates, the above definition clearly implies that the function of the priest is only to "preside," and that the supposed confection of the sacrament is effected not by the priest, but by "the people of God." One has only to leave out the prepositional phrase "with a priest presiding," to see that the action is performed by the "assembly or congregation of the people of God gathered together." So offensive was this definition that Paul VI found it necessary to revise it shortly after its promulgation. Its new form reads: "At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst (Matt. 1:20)."

In changing the definition Paul VI was careful to point out that no doctrinal differences existed between this and the former definition, and that "the amendments were only a matter of style." The stylistic change is that the presiding priest is now acting in the person of Christ. However, his function is still that of "presiding"; it is still the "people of God" who are called together to celebrate the memorial of the Lord; and the parallel with evening family prayers is retained. True, we find the traditional phrase of the priest "acting in the person of Christ." But it should be remembered that a priest can act in the person of Christ in a variety of ways other than as a sacrificing priest (which is the essential and traditional understanding of the nature of the priesthood), as for example, when he teaches, exhorts, counsels or exorcises in the name of the Lord.^[27]Does the priest in saying the Novus Ordo provide or perform any sacrifice other than that of "praise and thanksgiving" such as Protestants believe is appropriate to Sunday services? Nowhere in the General Instruction (or in the rite itself) is it made clear that such occurs. And indeed, as we shall see, all reference to the priest performing any sacrificial function (apart from praise and thanksgiving) has also been deleted from the new rites of ordination.^[28]

Consideration of the other aspects of the new rite - the Novus Ordo Missae - tend to confirm its Protestant and non-sacrificial orientation. Consider the fact that the Words of Consecration are no longer called the "Words of Consecration," but only the "Words of Our Lord." While the point may seem minor, it raises the question of whether any consecration in fact occurs. Moreover these words are part of the "Institution of the Narration," (an entirely new phrase to Catholic theology). Nowhere is the priest instructed to say the words of Consecration "in the person of Christ." If one follows the rubrics of the General Instruction (such as obedience presumably requires), they are simply said as part of the history of what occured at the Last Supper. Now, the traditional Church has always taught that when the words are read as part of a narrative - as occurs when one reads the Gospel - no Consecration occurs. The priest must say the words in persona Christi, as something happening "here and now," or the Sacred Species are not confected. Truly the new mass has changed the "immolative sacrifice" into a mere "memorial."

And what of the supposed "Words of Our Lord"? I say "supposed" because these words were also significantly changed by Paul VI. The words used by Our Lord at the Last Supper are well known - they have been handed down to us by Tradition since time immemorial. These words are not exactly the same as those found in the Gospel renditions and there was absolutely no justification for changing them to bring them into line with Scripture. (And even less for bringing them into line with the Lutheran service.) It should be remembered that the true Mass existed years before the first Scriptures were written down (and long before Luther came on the scene); one can assume that the Apostles took great care to use the exact words specified by our Lord at the "Last Supper" for the Consecration. (The twelve Apostles said Mass in slightly different ways, but always preserved these words with great care - and to this day in the 80 or more different traditional rites which have been in use in various parts of the world, preserve these words exactly.) But not only did Paul VI change the words of our Lord traditionally used in the Consecration formulas, he also altered them so that they no longer even conform to those found in Scripture. The Church has throughout the ages taught that Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient to save all men, but that on our part it does not effectually save all, but only those that cooperate with grace. Thus it is that the traditional formula for Consecrations says "for you and for many."^[29] However, the new rite insistently translates this phrase as "for you and for all," thus attacking the theological (and logical) principle that distinguishes sufficiency from efficiency and leading ont to assume that as a result of the historical Sacrifice of the Cross, all men are saved. Such a change of meaning in the Consecratory formula attacks the "substance" of the rite and even taken in isolation - apart from the numerous other defects indicated - certainly renders it of dubious validity.

Such then are but two or three of the ways in which the Mass inherited from the Apostles has been altered. Space does not allow for a fuller discussion and the reader is referred to the author's Problems with the New Mass for a more detailed consideration. The primary intent of the present book is not to discuss the Mass, but rather the other Sacraments - namely Holy Orders and the Sacraments dependent upon it.

We shall consider Holy Orders first because it is that Sacrament by means of which priests are ordained, that is, given the "power" to say Mass and administer the other Sacraments pertinent to their function. It is said to imprint a "sacramental character" on the recipients that provides them with the special graces necessary for them to fulfill their high calling and to act "in persona Christi." Priests are ordained by bishops who are consecrated by other bishops going back in an "initiatic chain" to the Apostles, and hence it is through the "episcopacy" that the Apostolic Succession is passed on.^[30] If follows that, if the ordination rite for bishops were in some way to be nullified and rendered invalid, priests ordained by them would not be priests, and all the other sacraments dependent upon this high estate would be rendered null and void.^[31] In order to place the subject under consideration in a proper perspective it will be necessary to define the "Sacrament of Order," to determine whether the rite of episcopal consecration is a true Sacrament, to specify what is required for validity, and then to examine the new rite and see whether it "signifies the grace" which it is meant to effect, and "effects the grace" which it is meant to signify.

Considerable perplexity arises from the fact that while the Sacrament of Order is one, it is conferred in stages. In the Western Church these are divided into seven steps - the "Minor Orders" of acolyte, exorcist, lector and doorkeeper; and the "Major Orders" of the subdeaconate, deaconate and priesthood. Almost at once confusion enters the picture, for some of the ancient texts list six, others eight and nine. In the Greek Church, the rites of which are considered unquestionably valid, subdeacons are listed in the "minor" category. In all the Churches that recognize Orders as a Sacrament (The Protestants - which category includes Anglicans - do not) we find both Deacons and Priests are "ordained" and that the Episcopate or rank of Bishop is included under the heading of Priests; it is in fact called the "summum sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood." Higher ranks in the Church such as Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope, are considered administrative and not Sacramental. Thus once a Pope is elected he is installed with appropriate ceremonies, but not with a sacramental rite.^[32]

For the sake of completeness it should be noted that 1) An ordinand (an individual about to be ordained) to any order, automatically receives the graces pertaining to a lesser order. (This principle is called per saltum, or "by jumping"). Thus if an individual were consecrated to the priesthood without receiving the lesser orders, he would automatically receive all the power and graces that relate to the lesser orders, such as, for example exorcism. The post-Conciliar Church has abolished many of the minor orders, but if this Church validly ordains priests, then these priests automatically receive the powers that pertain to these lower and "abolished" orders. However, when it comes to Bishops, almost all theologians hold that they must already be ordained priests, lacking which the episcopal rite conveys nothing. The Church has never infallibly pronounced on this issue and contrary opinion - namely that the Episcopal rite automatically confers on the recipient the character of priestly orders - exists.^[33] So critical is the Apostolic Succession that it is the customary practice of the Church to ordain a bishop with three other bishops. The rule is not absolute, for validity only requires one, and innumerable examples of where this custom has been by-passed can be given.

It is of interest that many traditional theologians have questioned whether the elevation of a Priest to the rank of Bishop is a sacramental or juridical act. The point is important because 1) it implies that an ordinary priest has the ability (not the right) to ordain (make other priests), and because 2), if the episcopal rite involves no "imprinting of a sacramental character," the question of validity can hardly arise. However, in so far as the ordination of Bishops has a "form" and a "matter," the greater majority hold that it is in fact a Sacrament - or rather that it is the completion of the Sacrament of Orders and confers upon the ordinand the "Fullness of priestly powers" and functions. Leo XIII clearly taught that such was the case. To quote him directly: "the episcopate, by Christ's institution, belongs most truly to the Sacrament of Order and is the priesthood in the highest degree; it is what the holy Fathers and our own liturgical usage call the high priesthood, the summit of the sacred ministry" (Apostolicae curae).

The rites used for Ordination are to be found in the Pontifical, a book that contains all the rites and ceremonies that are normally reserved to Bishops. Such was not always the case, for the first time we find reference to Pontificals as such is around the year 950 A.D.

Prior to that time, however, ordination rites existed and were to be found in various collections under a variety of different titles. One of the earliest of such collections still extant is that compiled in Rome by the schismatic anti-Pope Hippolytus - about the year 217 - and it is essentially from this source that Paul VI derived the new post-Conciliar rite of episcopal ordination.^{^[39]}^[39] Next in time are the three famous "sacramentaries" of the Roman Church, called the Leonine (Pope St. Leo died in 461), the Gelasian (Pope St. Gelasius died 496) and the Gregorian (Pope St. Gregory the Great died in 604). These collections of ceremonies include ordination rites. The last was revised and introduced into the Carolingian Empire during the eighth century; it was subsequently further revised and eventually became the Pontifical, a title that as such dates from 954. In the thirteenth century the celebrated canonist Guillaume Durand once again revised the text and this in turn was the basis of the first printed Pontifical which was issued in 1485. With the advent of printing, greater uniformity throughout Christendom became possible and Pope Innocent VII formally recommended the use of this text to all the churches in communion with Rome. Now, presumably St. Leo did not himself create the ordination rite found in his sacramentary - but rather wrote down the practice of the Church as he received it. No significant change in the rites of the western Church occurred between the time of St. Leo (461) and 1968.

In the sixth chapter of the Acts, the disciples, at the bidding of the Apostles, chose seven deacons. "These were set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them." The two elements discernible in this unique description of the Apostolic rite, that is, the outward gesture of imposing hands and the recitation of a prayer, form the substance of the rite of ordination.^[40]

Prior to the twelfth century liturgical and theological writers did not concern themselves with determining the precise moment of ordination or the exact words required for validity. They were inspired with the principle of retaining intact all that had been handed down to them, though they did not hesitate at times to elaborate the rites further with appropriate additions. They were doubtless satisfied with the knowledge that the whole rite properly performed conferred the priesthood. However, when one reads their explanations of the symbolism involved in the rites, one can conclude that they had opinions about what was essential as opposed to what was ceremonial - thus some thought that the sacrament was conferred by the imposition of hands on the ordinand's head, while others considered that it occurred when the bishop anointed the hands or gave the newly ordained priest the paten and chalice - the so-called "tradition of instruments."^[41]

As noted above, it was William of Auxere or St. Albert the Great who introduced the Aristotelian terminology of "matter" and "form" into the discussion, a pattern followed by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventura and all subsequent writers. Yet these individuals had differing opinions as to just what constituted proper matter and form. Once again, it should be stressed however that they accepted without question the traditional rites of the Church handed down from time immemorial. They also recognized that these rites, like the Mass itself, had undergone certain changes in the way of appropriate additions (but not deletions) over the centuries. Thus for example, the tapping of the shoulder of the Deacon with the Scriptures could not have occurred prior to the Scriptures having been written, and this occurred years to decades after the death of our Lord. Again, the "tradition of instruments" was added to the rite some time after the fourth century and is not even mentioned in any ritual composed before 900 A.D. One must logically assume that the essential form and matter remained unchanged from the time of the Apostles who ordained the first Deacons and Priests. Appropriate additions, unlike deletions, do not affect validity.

As noted above, the form and matter of Holy Orders were not among those given in specie, or precise detail, by Our Lord. These being established by the Apostles, the Church was free to change the words of the form, providing she retained their "substantial" nature as specified by Christ or the Apostles. The first "semi-official" pronouncement by the Church on the issue of the necessary "form" is to be found in the Decree for the Armenians promulgated in 1439:"The sixth Sacrament is that of Order; its matter is that by giving of which the Order is conferred: thus the priesthood is conferred by giving the chalice with wine and of a paten with bread... The form of the priesthood is as follows: "Receive power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. "This statement reflected the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and the shared common practice of the Roman and Armenian churches. It was however never considered as definitive. For one thing, the Greeks, the validity of whose Orders has never been questioned, do not practice the "tradition of instruments." For another, historical studies demonstrate that this practice was introduced sometime after the fourth century. Thus it is that the Fathers at the Council of Trent left the issue open and deliberately avoided defining either the matter or form of this sacrament.^[42]

Luther and those that followed after him, clearly denied that the Mass was an immolative Sacrifice, and among other things, propitiatory for the living and the dead. If such is the case, it follows that there is no need for a priesthood. Hence it is that Protestants deny that Holy Orders and the rites that flow from Orders are in fact sacraments at all. (They only accept Baptism and Marriage as such.) However the reformers faced a serious problem. The laity were unwilling to accept as religious leaders individuals who were not in some way consecrated, and in whom they did not see the character of their familiar priests.^[43] As a result, the reformers devised new rites aimed at incorporating their new and heterodox theology, but clothed them in the outward forms familiar to the people. In essence they did this by changing the form of the Sacrament, and by deleting any statements in the accompanying rites (what theologians call "significatio ex adjunctis") that specified special powers and graces such as were pertinent to the priesthood or episcopacy. In England, Cranmer (strongly influenced by both Luther and Calvin) was the individual who master-minded the changes during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI - changes incorporated into the Anglican Ordinal.^[44] During this period innumerable "presbyters" and "bishops" were "ordained" with rites aimed at voiding the Catholic understanding of their function.^[45] Shortly after this first apostasy of the English realm the true faith was restored under Catholic Queen Mary. Almost at once the problem of the validity of these Cranmerian ordinations came into question.

In June of 1555 Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Praeclara carissimi, in which he stated that anyone ordained a Bishop who was not "rite et recte ordinatus" (properly and correctly ordained) was to be ordained again. He further clarified this statement in another Brief entitled Regimini universalis (issued October 1555) in which he stated "eos tantum episcopos et archepiscopos qui non in forma ecclesiae ordinati et consecrati fuerunt, rite et rect ordinatos dici non posse (Anyone ordained to the rank of bishops or archbishops by rites other than those used by the Church are not properly and correctly ordained.") To be properly and correctly ordained it was necessary to use the "customary form of the Church." In accord with the traditional practice of the Church, the fact that rites were performed by schismatics did not invalidate them. Where doubt existed conditional re-ordination was required.This practice of the Church did nothing to solve the issue of what was correct form and matter, and what has to be understood is that the theologians of that period were not concerned with determining the matter and the form, but with assuring themselves that the entire rite of the Church be used with the proper intention on the part of the officiating consecrator. But it was also a period when the number of Protestant sects was growing by leaps and bounds, and with them the number of rites containing major and minor changes. As in the Mass, minor changes did not necessarily invalidate the rite or even make it depart from what was considered customary form.

To make matters worse, affairs in the Anglican Church later took a conservative turn. After the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Puritans with their anti-sacramentarian attitudes gained increasing control. But in 1662 under Archbishop Laud, there was a reaction in the opposite direction which resulted in the creation of a "High Anglican" party that Romanized much of the Anglican liturgy while firmly retaining her reformist principles. Words were added to the consecratory forms of Orders to bring them closer to Catholic practice - specifically the term "priest" and "bishop" were introduced into their formulas and the claim put forth that the Anglican body was, like the Greek Church, separate but "orthodox." The "branch theory" was born and they claimed the status of a "sister Church." Regardless of the words used however, the adherence to Protestant theology (Anglicans still had to adhere to the "39 Articles.") left these rites with at least a defect of intention.^[46] And so the debates went on as to what was proper form and matter, and what constituted the essential words required to confer the priestly and/or episcopal character on ordinands. A Sacrament must by definition be an "outward sign of inward grace instituted by Christ for our sanctification" (Catechism of the Council of Trent.) As Leo XIII stated in his Apostolicae curiae, "all know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the essential rite, that is to say, in the 'matter' and 'form,' it still pertains chiefly to the 'form' since the 'matter' is the part which is not determined by itself but which is determined by the 'form.'" (One can illustrate this with Baptism where the matter is water and the form is "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.") The "form" is then of paramount importance and it is primarily this which we will concern ourselves in what follows.

By the middle of the 17th century, both as a result of printing and the increase in international travel, scholars became familiar with the ordination rites in use throughout the world. In 1665, Jean Moran, a French Roman Catholic theologian, published a work in which he set out a large collection of ordination rites of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Following the principle that the matter and form must be something which was held in common by all these valid rites, he concluded that for matter what was required was the imposition of hands,^[47] and that all the forms agreed in requiring that the office conferred must be specified. To quote him directly:"Let Protestants search all Catholic rituals not only of the West, but of the East; they will not find any one form of consecrating Bishops (or priests), that hath not the word Bishop (or priest) in it, or some others expressing the particular authority, the power of a Bishop (or priest) distinct from all other degrees of holy orders." This of course was a private opinion and theologians continued to debate as to whether it was sufficient that the office conferred be mentioned in the other parts of the rite - the so-called principle of "significatio ex adjunctis." Further, as already mentioned, Protestant sects who had in earlier times avoided the word "priest" like the plague, began to re-introduce the word "priest" within the context of their rites - understanding by the term "priest," not a "sacrificing priest," but an individual elected by the community to preach the Word of God. In a similar manner they re-introduced the term "Bishop" - but understood in a purely juridical or administrative sense and often translated as "overseer." This particular issue - namely, the need to mention the office of the ordinand within the "form" - was seemingly settled by Leo XIII's Apostolicae curae which criticized the Anglican form prior to 1662 for lacking this specification, and criticized the Anglican form after 1662 for using the terms priest and bishop in other than the Catholic sense.

As a result of the work of Jean Moran, Catholic theologians shifted the grounds of their objection to Protestant ordination rites. Two things became clear: 1) the fact that they had no "tradition of the instruments" could no longer be said to invalidate them, and 2) the prayer "Accept the Holy Ghost" which the Anglicans used in their episcopal ordinations and which they claimed transferred the sacramental power, was not universally used, and hence could not be said to constitute an essential part of the rite. (This sentence is highlighted for later reference.) Debate on the issue of the "form" continued until 1947 when Pius XII determined for all future times just what the matter and the form for the Sacrament of Order was. His definition is to be found in the Decree Sacramentum Ordinis,^[48] which document has, according to such renowned theologians as J.M. Hervé and Felix Capello, all the characteristics of an infallible definition.^[49] According to Father Bligh, "its purpose was not speculative... but practical." The rite itself was in no way changed, and indeed, Pius XII insisted that it should not be. His aim was "to put an end to scruples about the validity of Orders received by priests who felt that some possibly essential part of the long and complicated rite had not been properly performed in their cases." For the future it intended "to remove all disputes and controversy: the character, graces and powers of the sacrament are all conferred simultaneously by the imposition of hands and the words Da quaesumus... the other ceremonies - the vesting, anointing, tradition of instruments and second imposition of hands - do not effect what they signify; they signify in detail what has already been effected by the matter and the form."

Pius XII stated that "the form consists of the words of the 'Preface,' of which these are essential and required for validity":"Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent." (Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them so that they may obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives inculcate the pattern of holy living).

Similarly, in the ordination of bishops, the same infallible document states that "the form consists of the words of the Preface of which the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity":"Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica" (Fill up in Thy priest the perfection (summum can also be translated "fullness") of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty). It should be stressed that Pius XII in no way changed the rite - indeed, he stressed that the rite was to remain intact. At the end of the document he states:"We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it..."

According to the majority of theologians, "Catholic theology teaches that if a properly constituted minister of a Sacrament uses due matter and form, with at least the minimum personal intention necessary, his sacrament is valid, even if he adheres to a sect which is openly heretical."^[50] Now if this is the case, it would seem that the remainder of the rite - the so-called "ceremonial" part - is not essential for validity. (As has been pointed out elsewhere, a priest who uses these criteria within a non-Catholic rite is guilty of sacrilege, but sacrilege as such does not necessarily invalidate the Sacrament.)Despite this principle, Pope Leo XIII taught that the revised 1662 form of Anglican Orders is invalid (among other reasons) because the terms "priest" and "bishop" mean vastly different things to Anglicans than they do to Catholics. This, he said, is made clear from the other parts of the Anglican rite which deliberately delete every reference to the sacrificial nature of these exalted states. To quote him directly:"In the whole [Anglican] ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not only entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out..."(Apostolicae curae).In the traditional Catholic rite innumerable references make it clear that the primary function of the priest is to offer the Sacrifice; his other functions are also delineated. (So also with the Bishop.) The fact that other parts of the rite make the meaning of the form quite clear is termed significatio ex adjunctis. It would seem that while a positive significatio ex adjunctis may not be essential for validity, a negative one - as for example when every reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood is deliberately omitted - may invalidate the form.^[51]

The issue of significatio ex adjunctis becomes critical in evaluating the validity of the post-Conciliar rite for ordaining priests. Like its Anglican prototype, the new Latin "form" contains the word "priest," but like its Anglican prototype, the remainder of the new rite fails to specify the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.^[52] Thus it would appear to suffer from precisely the same defects that Leo XIII pointed to in the Anglican rite. It is interesting to consider Michael Davies' assessment of the new rite.^[53] "Pope Paul VI promulgated the new ordination rites for deacon, priest and bishop with his Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio of 18 June 1968. Where the rite for ordaining a priest is concerned, the first point to make is that the matter and essential form designated by Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis remain unchanged. [This is not strictly speaking true as the next section points out. Ed.] this is a point in favour of the new rite. It is the only point in its favour. The traditional rite of ordination has been remodeled 'in the most drastic manner,' and following Cranmer's example, this has been achieved principally by the subtraction of 'prayers and ceremonies in previous use,' prayers and ceremonies which gave explicit sacerdotal signification to the indeterminate formula specified by Pius XII as the essential form. This formula does indeed state that the candidates for ordination are to be elevated to the priesthood - but so does the Anglican. Within the context of the traditional Roman Pontifical there was not the least suspicion of ambiguity - within the new rite there most certainly is. While the new rite in no way suggests that it is not intended to ordain sacrificing priests, where (and if) it does refer to the sacrifice of the Mass it does so in muted tones, and with considerable stress is laid on the ministry of the Word - a change in emphasis well calculated to please the Protestants... Cranmer's reform has been followed not simply in the composition of the new Ordinal, denuded of almost every mandatory reference to the sacrifice of the Mass - the very term 'Sacrifice of the Mass' does not occur in either the Latin or vernacular version of the 1968 Catholic rite."^[54]

Michael Davies further points out that, while the "form" used in the new rite is not greatly different from that specified by Pius XII, it nevertheless contains nothing "to which any Protestant could take exception," and nothing that "in the least incompatible with Protestant teaching." Now, if the form is "indeterminate," and if the remainder of the rite fails to specify that it intends to ordain sacrificing priests, then the new rite suffers from exactly the same defects as its Anglican prototype. The fact that Leo XIII's irreformably condemned the Anglican rite on just these grounds obviously justifies raising questions about the validity of the post-Conciliar result.So much is this the case that Michael Davies believes that the strongest - and perhaps only - argument in favor of its validity is that it was promulgated by a valid Pope (Paul VI). While the principle that a valid pope cannot promulgate an invalid sacrament is correct, Michael Davies seems oblivious to the possibility that his argument can be inverted. If the rite is shown to be invalid, or for that matter, even doubtful, one is forced to question the legitimacy of the pope.^[55] Michael Davies is of course mistaken when he states that the post-Conciliar "form" for ordaining priests is unchanged. Consider once again the words specified by Pius XII:"Da quaesumus, omnipotens pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent" (Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them so that they may obtain the office of the second rank received from Thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives inculcate the pattern of holy living).

The sacrosanct character of the substance of a sacramental form has already been discussed. Pope Pius XII specified that for validity the Sacrament of Order must clearly specify the sacramental effects involved. These are, in the rite under consideration, the power of Order and the Grace of the Holy Ghost (Sacramentum Ordinis). If we examine this new formula we see that the first part expresses the power of the priestly order, but not the grace of the Holy Ghost. The word "priesthood," however, has lost its specifically Catholic meaning during the past few centuries, so that the second sentence fulfills two functions: it specifies that the priesthood is an "office of the second rank," and further specifies that the "grace of the Holy Ghost" accompanies the Sacrament. When we come to the post-Conciliar form, confusion reigns. In the Latin, the form specified in Paul VI's official promulgation (found in the Pontificalis Romani Recognitio) uses the phrase "in his famulos tuos (similar to the traditional form and Pius XII), while the Acta Apostolica - equally official - uses the phrase "his famulis tuis." Further, regardless of which post-Conciliar form is considered "official," both delete the word "ut."

What do these changes signify? The deletion of the word "ut" (meaning "so that") removes the causal relationship between the two sentences. No longer is it made clear that the ordinand receives the "office of the second rank" as a result of the "renewal of the Spirit of Holiness." Whether or not this invalidates the rite is open to question and much depends on the reason why ut was deleted. By changing in hos famulos tuos (on these Thy servants) to his famulis tuis, not only are the words of Pius XII further altered, but their sense is changed. In hos famulos tuos implies giving something to the ordinand in such a manner that it enters into him and becomes interior to him. To specify his famulis tuis has the sense of giving something to someone merely as an external possession - without the idea of it entering into him and becoming part of him. The significance of this difference should hit home, as Father Jenkins points out, when we remember that we are speaking here of the order of priesthood which involves the indelible character imprinted upon the very soul of the recipient. This idea is clearly conveyed in the traditional expression, but not in the new form created by Paul VI.^[56] Rather, the new formula communicates the idea that the priesthood is an external office (such as the "Presidency"), and such as Reformers believed in, such a change in meaning is clearly "substantial."

Things are made even more confusing when the vernacular is used, The "provisional" ICEL (English) translation used between June 1968 and June 1970 asked the Ordinand be given "the dignity" of the "presbyterate." Now the term "presbyter" has been used throughout history by the Reformers to designate their non-Sacrificing and non-ordained "ministers." As I have clearly shown elsewhere, the term in English can in no way be considered as equivalent to "priest" - indeed, it signifies just the opposite, and even the High Anglicans reject its use.^[57] This casts still further doubt on validity - as is recognized by the fact that after 1970 the ICEL translation no longer used it, but reverted to "priesthood." However, the innovators seem determined to maintain the doubtful status of the rite. Even though in 1970 they changed "presbyter" back to "priesthood," they also changed the meaning of the second part of the formula by mistranslating and changing "the office of the second rank" (the importance of which was demonstrated above) to "co-workers with the Order of bishops." Needless to say, this latter phrase is completely indeterminate and can mean almost anything except "office of the second rank."

Highly significant of the post-Conciliar presidential "ordination" is the omission or rather deletion of the phrase which states that a priest is ordained according to the Order of Melchisedech, for Melchisedech who is both king and priest, is a figure of the Messias who offers a sacrifice of bread and wine.