Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on September 06, 2014, 06:53:37 PM
-
My friend and I were discussing the necessity of receiving minor orders prior to becoming a priest. Since Paul VI abolished the minor orders, a man can become a Novus Ordo priest without having first received minor orders; this shows that Novus Ordo rite of ordination is not even Catholic, let alone valid.
St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of "Whether we ought to distinguish several Orders?" (Summa suppl. q. 37 a. 1 (http://"http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP037.html#XPQ37A1THEP1")). St. Thomas clearly says in the corpus that the "Multiplicity of Orders was introduced into the Church for three reasons." In the reply to objection 2, St. Thomas writes:
The division of Order is not that of an integral whole into its parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potential whole, the nature of which is that the notion of the whole is found to be complete in one part, but in the others by some participation thereof. Thus it is here: for the entire fulness of the sacrament is in one Order, namely the priesthood, while in the other sacraments there is a participation of Order. And this is signified by the Lord saying (Num. 11:17): "I will take of thy spirit and give to them, that they may bear with thee the burden of the people." Therefore all the Orders are one sacrament.
So, how can a man skip right to the priesthood, bypassing the minor orders?
The Council of Trent sess. 23 ch. 2 (http://"http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.x.html#v.i.i.x-p1.14") also makes this very clear:
On the Seven Orders.
And whereas the ministry of so holy a priesthood is a divine thing; to the end that it might be exercised in a more worthy manner, and with greater veneration, it was suitable that, in the most well ordered settlement of the Church, there should be several and diverse orders of ministers to minister to the priesthood, by virtue of their office; orders so distributed as that those already marked with the clerical tonsure should ascend through the lesser to the greater orders. For the sacred Scriptures make open mention not only of priests, but also of deacons; and teach, in words the most weighty, what things are especially to be attended to in the Ordination thereof; and, from the very beginning of the Church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit, those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank; for the subdeaconship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.
And especially this anathema sit in Canon II (http://"http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.x.html#v.i.i.x-p6.17")
Si quis dixerit, præter sacerdotium non esse in Ecclesia Catholica alios ordines et majores et minores, per quos, velut per gradus quosdam, in sacerdotium tendatur: anathema sit.
If any one saith, that, besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood: let him be anathema.
-
Also, a correction: Paul VI did not abolish all the minor orders (which renamed "ministries"); see his Ministeria Quaedam (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MINORS.HTM) (15 Aug. 1972), in which he retains the reader and acolyte but abolishes the others, porter & exorcist, because apparently those aren't "adapted to contemporary needs"!
-
Minor Orders has never been considered a prerequisite for validly receiving ordination to the priesthood.
-
Minor Orders has never been considered a prerequisite for validly receiving ordination to the priesthood.
Agreed. The Church doesn't even pretend that the minor orders were from the beginning, which would be necessary in order for the minor orders to be essential. Additionally, if the minor orders were essential to make the rites valid, they would be part of the form of the sacrament. No where can one find any evidence that this was ever considered.
There are plenty of valid and compelling arguments against the validity of the new rites of orders. But the anti-sedevacantists inevitably latch on to the weakest and claim that this is what "sedevacantists believe" and then proceed to demonstrate who ignorant we are. Don't give them fodder for their foolishness.
-
In fact, not even the Major Order of diaconate is a prerequisite for valid ordination to the priesthood. Our Lord only directly instituted ordination to the priesthood / episcopacy, and the Apostles derived the diaconate from it; it was implicitly contained within Holy Orders. Theologians have always taught that all the Minor and Major Orders before the priesthood are contained implicitly within the priesthood and are actually derived from the priesthood so that when the priesthood is conferred, so are all the minor and major orders preceding it. Theologians dispute whether a non-priest can be directly ordained a bishop, i.e. whether the priestly ordination is contained implicitly within the episcopal; the vast majority of theologians think that episcopal consecration cannot be validly conferred upon a non-priest.
-
Minor Orders has never been considered a prerequisite for validly receiving ordination to the priesthood.
How do you explain Trent's Canon II quoted above?
-
The Church doesn't even pretend that the minor orders were from the beginning
…from the very beginning of the Church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit, those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper.
-
Minor Orders has never been considered a prerequisite for validly receiving ordination to the priesthood.
How do you explain Trent's Canon II quoted above?
Where in ANYTHING you cited does it state that the Minor Orders are required for the validity of ordination to the priesthood? Answer: nowhere. Answer: no theologian has EVER held that these are required for the validity of priestly ordination. Case closed.
-
The Church doesn't even pretend that the minor orders were from the beginning
…from the very beginning of the Church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit, those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper.
There's beginning and there's beginning. Trent itself teaches that these are of Ecclesiastical rather than Divine insititutition, i.e that the Church saw fit to create (or, rather, "derive") these orders "to the end that [Holy Orders] might be exercised in a more worthy manner, and with greater veneration".
-
Trent itself teaches that these are of Ecclesiastical rather than Divine insititutition
Where?
thanks
-
Trent itself teaches that these are of Ecclesiastical rather than Divine insititutition
Where?
thanks
it was suitable that, in the most well ordered settlement of the Church
Furthermore, you see in ACTS how the Apostles established the diaconate.
You need to just drop this. No theologian has EVER held that the minor orders or even major orders of diaconate and subdiaconate are prerequisites for valid ordination to the priesthood.
-
Trent itself teaches that these are of Ecclesiastical rather than Divine insititutition
Where?
thanks
it was suitable that, in the most well ordered settlement of the Church
Furthermore, you see in ACTS how the Apostles established the diaconate.
You need to just drop this. No theologian has EVER held that the minor orders or even major orders of diaconate and subdiaconate are prerequisites for valid ordination to the priesthood.
St. Thomas says all the minor are contained in the diaconate, so it would seem that, at the very least, one needs to be a deacon first before becoming a priest.
Now, do Novus Ordo deacons even have the ability to exorcize? Do even Novus Ordo priests?
-
St. Thomas says all the minor are contained in the diaconate, so it would seem that, at the very least, one needs to be a deacon first before becoming a priest.
Nope.