Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/482

 PRIESTHOOD

416

PRIESTHOOD

terms "bishop" and "priest" indiscriminately. In fact, it is really a moot question whether the presby- terate gradually developed as an offshoot of the epis- copate — which is in the nature of things more likely and in view of the needs of the growing Church more readily understood — or whether, conversely, the epis- copate had its origin in the elevation of the presby- terate to a higher rank (Lightfoot), which is more difficult to admit. On the other hand, even at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch (Ep. ad Magnes., vi and passim) brings out with re- markable clearness the hierarchical distinction be- tween the monarchical bishop, the priests, and the deacons. He emphasizes this triad as essential to the constitution of the Church: "Without these [three] it cannot be called the Church" (Ad Trail., iii). But, according to the law of historic continuity, this dis- tinction of the orders must have existed in substance and embryo during the first century; and, as a matter of fact, St. Paul (I Tim., v, 17, 19) mentions "presby- ters" who were subordinate to the real bishop Tim- othy. But in the Latin writers there is no ambiguity. TertuUian (De bapt., xvii) calls the bishop the "summus sacerdos", under whom are the "presbyteri et diaconi"; and Cyprian (Ep. Ixi, 3) speaks of the "presbyteri cum episcopo sacerdotali honore con- junct! ", i. e. the priests united by sacerdotal dignity with the bishop (see Bishop).

About 360, after the development of the orders had long been complete, Aerius of Pontus first ventured to obliterate the distinction between the priestly and episcopal orders and to place them on an equality with respect to their powers. For this he was ranked among the heretics by Epiphanius (Adv. h»r., lx.xv, 3). The testimony of St. Jerome (d. 420), whom the Scottish Presbyterians cite in behalf of the presbyteral constitution of the Church, raises some difficulties, as he appears to assert the full equality of priests and bishops. It is true that Jerome endeavoured to en- hance the dignity of the priesthood at the expense of the episcopate and to refer the bishop's superiority "rather to ecclesiastical custom than to Divine regula- tion" (In Tit., i, 5: "Episcopi noverint se magis eon- suetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate pres- byteris esse majores"). He desired a more democratic constitution in which the priests hitherto undeserv- edly slighted would participate, and he urged the correction of the abuse, widespread since the third century, by which the archdeacons, as the "right hand" of the bishops, controlled the whole diocesan administration (Ep. cxliv ad Evangel.). It is at once evident that Jerome disputes not the hierarchical rank {poteslas ordinis) of the bishops but their powers of government (poteslas jurisdictionis) — and this not so much in principle, but only to insist that the deacons should be dislodged from the position they had usurped and the priests established in the official position befitting their higher rank. How far Jerome was from being a follower of Aerius and a forerunner of Presbyterianism appears from his important ad- mission that the power of ordination is possessed by the bishops alone, and not by the priests (loc. cit. in P. L., XXII, 1193: "Quid enim facit — excepta ordinatione — episcopus quod presbyter nonfaciat?"). By this admission Jerome establishes his orthodoxy. "C. The Sacramenlality of the Presbyierate. — The Council of Trent decreed (Sess. XXIII, can. iii, in Denzinger, n. 963): "If any one shall say that order or sacred ordination is not truly and properly a sacra- ment institutccl hy Christ our Lord . . . let him be anathema." While the synod defined only the existence of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, without deciding whether all the orders or only some fall within the definition, it is admitted that the priestly ordination possesses with even greater certainty than the epis- copal and the diaconal ordination the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Benedict XIV, "De syn. dioces.",

VIII, ix, 2). The three essentials of a sacrament — outward sign, interior grace, and institution by Christ ■ — are found in the priestly ordination.

As regards the outward sign, there has been a long- protracted controversy among theologians concerning the matter and form, not alone of the priestly ordina- tion, but of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in general. Is the imposition of hands alone (Bonaventure, Morin, and most modern theologians), or the pres- entation of the instruments (Gregory of Valencia, the Thomists), or are both together (Bellarmine, De Lugo, Billot etc.) to be regarded as the essential matter of the sacrament? As to the priestly ordination in par- ticular, which alone concerns us here, the difference of views is explained by the fact that, in addition to three impositions of hands, the rite includes a pres- entation to the candidate of the chalice filled with wine, and of the paten with the host. Concerning the latter Eugenius IV says expressly in his "Decretum pro Armenis" (1439; in Denzinger, n. 701): "The priesthood is conferred by the handing of the chalice containing wine and of the paten with bread." How- ever, in view of the fact that in the Bible (Acts, xiii, 3; xiv, 22; I Tim., iv, 14; v, 22; II Tim., i, 6), in all patristic literature, and in the whole East the imposi- tion of hands alone is found, while even in the West the presentation of the sacred vessels does not extend back beyond the tenth centurj-, we are forced to recognize theoretically that the latter ceremony is unessential, like the solemn anointing of the priest's hands, which is evidentlj' borrowed from the Old Testament and was introduced from the Galilean into the Roman Rite (cf. "Statuta ecclesi» antiqua;" in P. L., LVI, 879 sqq.). In defence of the anointing, the Council of Trent condemned those who declared it "despicable and pernicious" (Sess. XXXIII, can. v). As regards the sacramental form, it may be accepted as probable that the prayer accompanying the second extension of hands (xe'poroi'ia) is the essential form, although it is not impossible that the words spoken by the bishop during the third im- position of hands {x^ipoOeata): "Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted, etc.", constitute a partial form. The first imposition of hands by the bishop (and the priests) cannot be regarded as the form, since it is performed in silence, but it also may have an essential importance in so far as the second extension of hands is simply the moral con tinuat ion of the first touchingof the head of the ordi- nandus (cf. Gregory IX, "Decret.", I, tit. xvi, cap. HI). The oldest formularies — e. g. the "Eucholo- gium" of Serapion of Thmuis (cf. Funk, "Didascalia", II, Tiibingen, 1905, 189), the "Pseudo-Apostohc Con- stitutions" (Funk, loc. cit., I, 520), the lately dis- covered "Testament of the Lord" (ed. Rahmani, Mainz, 1S99, p. 68), and the Canons of Hippolytus (ed. Achelis, Leipzig, 1S91, p. 61) — contain only one imposition of hands with a short accompanying prayer. In the eleventh century the Mozaraljic Rite is still quite simple (cf. "Monum. liturg.", V, Paris, 1904, pp. 54 sq.), while, on the contrary, the Armenian Rite of the Middle Ages shows great complexity (cf. Conybeare-Maclean, "Rituale Armenorum", Oxford, 1905, pp. 231 sqq.). In the Greek-Byzantine Rite, the bishop, after making three signs of the cross, places his right hand on the head of the ordinandus, meanwhile reciting a prayer, anil then, praying in secret, holds the same hand extended above the candi- date, and invokes upon him the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost (cf. Goar, "Euchol. Grxc", Paris, 1047, pp. 292 sqq.). For other formularies of ordination see Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium", II (Wiirzburg, 1864); Manser in Buchbergcr, "Kirchliches Hand- lexikon", s. v. Priesterweihe.

As a sacrament of the living, ordination presupposes the possession of sanctifying grace, and therefore con- fers, besides the right to the actual graces of the