Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: biblioc on January 09, 2023, 06:51:49 PM
-
Can a man become a Priest without being a Deacon? Or, can a Bishop become a Priest without being Ordained a Priest first? Someone said Saint Thomas Aquinas had an answer to this? Or, maybe another reference?
What about the Thuc-line? Were they Deacons before they were Ordained? And, by who?
Thanks.
-
Fr Hesse talks about this topic in this conference. Im sorry I cannot tell you at which minute mark. Somewhere in the first half I think.
https://youtu.be/8ligr-JwZBc
-
Can a man become a Priest without being a Deacon? Or, can a Bishop become a Priest without being Ordained a Priest first? Someone said Saint Thomas Aquinas had an answer to this? Or, maybe another reference?
What about the Thuc-line? Were they Deacons before they were Ordained? And, by who?
Thanks.
.
It is forbidden by the law of the Church to skip any of the minor or major orders. So it would be wrong to ordain a man a priest who is not a deacon. Nevertheless, the sacrament would be valid.
However, a man cannot be consecrated a bishop validly who is not a validly ordained priest. I believe the reason for this is that episcopal consecration merely augments the priestly character already existing in the person's soul. In any case, the sacramental form for episcopal consecration (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12sacrao.htm) presumes the person receiving it is already a priest:
Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry ...
So if the person is not a priest, the form would not be able to have that effect in him.
In any case, theologians teach that episcopal consecration is only valid if it is conferred on a validly ordained priest.
What about the Thuc-line? Were they Deacons before they were Ordained? And, by who?
There are a vast number of priests in the Thuc line, and it is impossible to give a general answer to this question. However, all traditional Catholic seminaries observe the rules I have described here, and do not skip any of the orders.
-
to Frank and Yeti.
1. where in video does Fr. Hesse say this? That a man cannot be a priest without being a deacon first?
2. Yeti, where does Saint Thomas Aquinas say a priest cannot become a priest without being a deacon first? And, Yeti, where is this listed in the docuмent you sent on Pope Pius XII?
I am really wanting to know what they said.
Thanks a million!
-
If I remember correctly, Fr Hesse says that being a deacon first is not necessary. Don’t quote me on that though. Take a shot of whiskey kick back and listen to the video.
-
Can a man become a Priest without being a Deacon? Or, can a Bishop become a Priest without being Ordained a Priest first? Someone said Saint Thomas Aquinas had an answer to this? Or, maybe another reference?
What about the Thuc-line? Were they Deacons before they were Ordained? And, by who?
Thanks.
A priest can be validly ordained without being a deacon beforehand, though it's an irregular situation. It's called per saltum.
A bishop must be a valid priest beforehand since being a bishop is achieving the fullness of the priesthood.
The Thuc-line through +des Lauriers and +Carmona have no issues with ordinations to my knowledge. Priests ordained through those two branches tend to receive proper seminary training and receive all minor and major orders on the path to the priesthood. The other branches of the Thuc-line are more of a gamble.
-
I appreciate all the comments but without any docuмentation what is to be believed? Did Saint Thomas Aquinas teach such? What about Fr. Hesse, and Sources? And who made Thuc-line deacons originally?
-
I appreciate all the comments but without any docuмentation what is to be believed?
Believe what you are told by these knowledgeable posters, or Google it up yourself. It's certain that me can be ordained validly to the priesthood without prior reception of the diaconate. St. Thomas would not be definitive on this matter anyway.
As for episcopal consecration, I believe that it's mostly due to the way the essential form of the Latin Rite is worded. I suspect that episcopal consecration COULD be conferred directly if the form were different, or if one of the Eastern Rite forms were used (though I haven't studied these).
-
I appreciate your words but without corroboration and sound-docuмentation by the Roman Pontiff, Church Father, Ecuмenical Council, it is hard to believe what you state. Where's the beef?
-
It is not certain that a man must be ordained a priest before being consecrated a bishop. There are many theologians who have taught that consecration "per saltum" is valid.
The matter has not been fully decided by the Church.
-
It is not certain that a man must be ordained a priest before being consecrated a bishop. There are many theologians who have taught that consecration "per saltum" is valid.
The matter has not been fully decided by the Church.
.
Well, it doesn't matter all that much in the practical order since the Church requires people to use the sacraments only in a way that is certainly valid. Since performing an episcopal consecration on someone who is not a priest is not certainly valid, it must not be used, and anyone consecrated in such a way is not a permissible source of the sacraments since his sacraments would not be certainly valid.
-
Again, where's the beef?
Where is the Docuмentation supporting your claims?
-
I smell a troll.
-
Can a man become a Priest without being a Deacon? Or, can a Bishop become a Priest without being Ordained a Priest first? Someone said Saint Thomas Aquinas had an answer to this? Or, maybe another reference?
What about the Thuc-line? Were they Deacons before they were Ordained? And, by who?
Thanks.
I have actually had this almost exact conversation with one of my novus ordo brothers recently.
I think that this is the Saint Thomas Aquinas Reference you are looking for from the Summa Theologica:
It is not necessary for the higher orders that one should have received the minor orders, because their respective powers are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower orders and yet they could do all that the lower orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (Decretals) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding order are not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding order."
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q35.A5
(http://It is not necessary for the higher orders that one should have received the minor orders, because their respective powers are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower orders and yet they could do all that the lower orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (Decretals) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding order are not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding order." https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q35.A5)
From what I understand... Each of the major orders was always required in sequence and Saint Thomas is saying that eventually the Church made the minor orders a rule first even though not necessary for validity.
-
I am going to attach some pictures of 8 relevant pages from the Catechism of the Council of Trent by Pope Pius V Edited by Saint Charles Borromeo concerning Holy Orders.
Major Points:
#1. List of the Seven Holy Orders
#2. Mentioning of the Minor Order an the Major Orders the latter which are considered sacred.
#3. Each of the Three Major Orders Mentioned and their Form (References at the bottom of each page for extra information)... Subdeacon, Deacon, and Priesthood.
#4. Consecrations of Bishops is a degree of the priesthood, not it's own separate order.
(I apologize if the pictures are not in order. I often have trouble when uploading from my phone).
-
Part of my brother's response which is relevant in particular to including the sources for the "per saltum" etc.:
"Leo XII treats of this as something of an unsettled question in his response to Anglican ordinations, Apostolicae Curae, but even so it seems reasonable to err on the side of caution.
"It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum, on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa.(Apostilicae Curae S.28)"
The position from the supplementum to the Summa Theologiae is a little stronger in favor of the fact that the case of the elevation of bishops is different from every other order: "One order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore, the episcopate is not an order." (ST III Sup. Q.40 A.5 Sed Contra)"
-
Finally we got the Beef! Great Job! And thanks for helping me out. Appreciate it a lot!
-
I want to note here that Saint Thomas speaks of minor orders and the Bishopric....however, how can one be a priest without being before a deacon? Remember, Saint Thomas states the following:
I answer that, It is not necessary for the higher orders that one should have received the minor orders, because their respective powers are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower orders and yet they could do all that the lower orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (Decretals) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding order are not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding order.
-
Nowhere in Saint Thomas Aquinas as I have looked in to it, and, correct if I am wrong, does he say that one can be a priest without being a deacon first. However, he does say that one can be a priest without having received the minor orders....which is not a higher order like the three in question: deacon, priest, and bishop.
Back to it, where's the beef?
-
Finally we got the Beef! Great Job! And thanks for helping me out. Appreciate it a lot!
You are welcome.
-
Nowhere in Saint Thomas Aquinas as I have looked in to it, and, correct if I am wrong, does he say that one can be a priest without being a deacon first. However, he does say that one can be a priest without having received the minor orders....which is not a higher order like the three in question: deacon, priest, and bishop.
Back to it, where's the beef?
The way I understand what he wrote was that the minor orders aren't necessary for valid progression to the next order (except by church law) but that each of the major orders are always necessary before preceding to the next sacred order for sale of surety of validity.
Interesting fact:
According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent the subdeaconate is one of the major orders (see pictures from thread I previously posted)...
I remember hearing from a traditional Catholic priest that before a man is ordained in the subdeaconate he has to make a vow to never marry.
-
I understand, thanks for the tips though. I'm still stuck on this there must be some Papal decree or Council or Saint that spoke on this matter.
-
Again, where's the beef?
Where is the Docuмentation supporting your claims?
I suggest that the beef is between your ears.
You can go ahead and doubt all priests who had been condtionally ordained and stay home alone. That's your business. Everyone else accepts what has always been the Church's practice, to consider those ordained directly to the priesthood to be valid priests.
-
It is not certain that a man must be ordained a priest before being consecrated a bishop. There are many theologians who have taught that consecration "per saltum" is valid.
The matter has not been fully decided by the Church.
True, but given that only some hold that it's valid, in the practical order, the matter is considered doubtful. Heck, some even hold that a priest can ordain another priest, but that too is doubtful.
I suspect that a bishop could certainly validly consecrate a non-priest as a bishop ... if the Sacramental form permitted it, but I believe the way the Latin Rite form is written, it would be dubious at best.
-
I have actually had this almost exact conversation with one of my novus ordo brothers recently.
I think that this is the Saint Thomas Aquinas Reference you are looking for from the Summa Theologica:
It is not necessary for the higher orders that one should have received the minor orders, because their respective powers are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower orders and yet they could do all that the lower orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (Decretals) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding order are not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding order."
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q35.A5
(http://It is not necessary for the higher orders that one should have received the minor orders, because their respective powers are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower orders and yet they could do all that the lower orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (Decretals) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding order are not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding order." https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.IIISup.Q35.A5)
From what I understand... Each of the major orders was always required in sequence and Saint Thomas is saying that eventually the Church made the minor orders a rule first even though not necessary for validity.
I bet that's just a poor translation. I imagine he's saying the higher orders vs. the lower orders (not "Minor" Orders in the strict sense). In fact, a couple sentences in, it switches to using the term "lower" orders.
So, here:
Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower orders and yet they could do all that the lower orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom.
-
So your saying that Francis by Apostolic Supreme is not the Pope? How dare you! Ungrateful. Home Alone wasn't that a movie?
-
A nice little popcorn and movie Flick Home Alone would not be such a bad idea! What is your problem dude? ?
-
Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Ladislaus/)
The most negative, mean, hurtful people are - well - you know - YOU! What is your problem? So many Traditionalists are utterly nauseating and so self-righteous! Remember that song by Bon Jonvi - well - You Give Love (God) a bad name! Get a life! And leave me alone!