Embedded Files
Simplified Explanation
Notes written for uninformed readers.
The question is whether it is ontologically possible, that is, whether it is possible in accordance with the nature of the priesthood and the act of ordination, that a man who is a priest but not a bishop can ordain a man a priest up to the order of presbyter.
This article will take the affirmative opinion, that it is compatible with the teaching of the Church that simple priests can ordain men into the priesthood even if the ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop.
This article will take the affirmative opinion, that it is compatible with the teaching of the Church that simple priests can ordain men into the priesthood even if the ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop.
See Also
OPINIONCan Simple Priests Ordain Men Priests?
Written on 23 June 2026by Juan P. Flores
Written on 23 June 2026by Juan P. Flores
In the Roman rite of priestly ordination, after the bishop places both hands upon the head of each candidate, all priests in attendance come forward and also lay their hands upon the candidates’ heads, albeit without saying the essential words. Some liturgists explain that it represents the consociation (fellowship) and public witness of the clergy, with the rubric meant to prevent rogue bishops from unilaterally ordaining men without the consent of the other clergy. Is this liturgical act a mere symbol, or could it indicate the reality that simple priests are capable of passing on the priesthood even if they lack its fullness?
Against the Protestant attacks on the Catholic hierarchy, the Council of Trent (1545–1563) dogmatically defined (in Session XXIII, Canon 7) that bishops have powers that simple priests do not have until they are consecrated as bishops, but not that simple priests lack the power to ordain priests before being consecrated bishops. The Council of Florence (1431–1445) in its decree for the Armenians had explicitly stated that the ordinary minister of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the bishop.
“The minister of this sacrament is the bishop, who indeed is the ordinary minister; to whom belong the other orders, which he himself confers, and he alone.”—— Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, 1439
What can be rightly deduced from the council father's inspired decision to use the word “ordinary” is that there is a possibility that an extraordinary minister can also administer the sacrament. Indeed, Catholic theologians have speculated that the potestas ordinis (power of order) that a priest receives at his ordination into the order of the presbyteriate suffices to perform any higher order as it is fundamentally identical to that of a bishop, albeit ordinarily restricted by the jurisdictional laws of the Church. When the Pope grants a delegation for a simple priest to ordain men priests, he does not pre-emptively infuse a new sacramental character into the priest, which would be a theological innovation, but rather allows a simple priest’s inherent sacramental power to function. The Franciscan theologian John Duns Scotus (1266–1308) writes that there is no ontological impediment to priests ordaining other priests.
“The character of the priesthood is the same in the simple priest and the bishop. Therefore, if the Pope gives a simple priest the execution of his order, that priest can validly ordain to any order, even to the priesthood itself. The reason the ordinary priest does not do so daily is due to a limitation placed upon him by the authority of the Church for the sake of peace and order, which limitation the Sovereign Pontiff can dispense.”—John Duns Scotus, Oxoniense (Reportata Parisiensia), IV, d. 25.
Scotus's contemporary St. Thomas Aquinas would argue for a different position in his Summa Theologiae, but in his earlier Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, he admitted that a Pope could hypothetically delegate a simple priest the power to ordain another priest.
“Since a priest has the highest power over the real Body of Christ [in the Consecration of the Eucharist], his power of order can be extended by papal commission to things which do not immediately touch the real Body, such as the conferral of orders, including the presbyterate.”—— St. Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sententiarum, d. 25, q. 1, a. 1, ad 3.
These writings of such eminent theologians are not mere speculations but rather the obvious understanding of what has been Catholic doctrine and practice for centuries. In the early Church, men known as chorepiscopi (rural bishops) evidently included simple presbyters, and their ability to perform ordinations is not put into question by regional councils imposing disciplines on them. In the year 341, for example, the Council of Antioch forbade that the so-called chorepiscopi from ordaining priests without the bishop of the city to which they were subject.
“It is not lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons, and most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the bishop given in writing, in another parish.”—The Council of Ancyra, Canon 13, AD 314
Rather than dismissing it as an impossibility, such regional synods imply that it was a real ontological possibility for them to ordain new priests without being bishops themselves. Some historians have questioned whether the chorepiscopi really were simple priests with the power to ordain clerics. Referencing the similar decrees of the later council of Laodicea, the Orator theologian Louis Thomassin (1619-95) concludes in his Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Église that the chorepiscopi usually “had only the title without consecration,” although he questions the Greek reading of the Council of Ancyra. Down through the years, it has become even clearer that it is possible for presbyters to be ordained by simple priests. On 1 February 1400, Pope Boniface IX, dealing with the chaos caused by the Avignon antipopes, granted the Augustinian Abbot of St. Osyth in Essex, England (otherwise a simple priest) the right to ordain his monks ad omnes sacros ordines, etiam presbyteratus (to all holy orders, even the presbyterate).
“...We, having been moved by the petitions of the said Abbot and Convent in this matter, grant that the same abbot and his successors, being for the time abbots of the said monastery, may freely and lawfully confer upon all and each of the canons of the said monastery, present and future, who have made profession therein, all the minor orders as well as the orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest, at the times prescribed by law; and that the said canons, thus promoted by the said abbots, may lawfully and freely exercise ministry in the orders so received. Notwithstanding any apostolic constitutions and any other enactments to the contrary, however issued and however strengthened by authority, We, by apostolic authority and by the tenor of these presents, grant this privilege to the said abbot and his successors and to their canons...”—Pope Boniface IX, Sacrae Religionis, 1400, (quoted by Franz Gillmann in Zur Lehre der Scholastik vom Spender der Firmung und des Weihesakraments, 1920)
Upon the insistance of the bishop of London, Boniface IX eventually revoked the privilege in 1403 with the bull Apostolicae Sedis, but his original bull is not the only one to express such notions. Pope Martin V in Gerentes Ad Vos (1427) and Pope Innocent VIII in Expositum Nobis (1489) let certain abbots (who were not all bishops) confer on their monks at least some of the major orders. The constant practice of the Church is proof enough of the idea's theological validity.
“It must be held as highly probable that a simple priest can be delegated by the Pope as an extraordinary minister of the priesthood... For we have the clear examples of the Supreme Pontiffs who granted this privilege to certain abbots. To say that the Popes erred in a matter of such gravity, and that the sacraments so administered were null, would be a slap against the providence of Christ over His Church.”—Francisco Suárez, De Sacramentis, Disp. 45, Sec. 3.
Dominic Prümmer, O.P., in his manual of moral theology expresses the contrary opinion, that “the popes in question were acting on a flawed theological opinion of their time, which does not compromise papal infallibility since these administrative indults were not dogmatic definitions.” Pope Pius XII exercised his power of governance over the current regulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders in his 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis by saying that in the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood, “the matter is the first imposition of hands of the bishop which is done in silence.” This is the current legislation regarding the issue, but it has no effect on the ontological reality. Dr. Ludwig Ott's 1955 manual of dogmatic theology still regards it as possible that while the bishop is the ordinary minister, a simple priest could theoretically be the extraordinary minister of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
“If one does not wish to assume that the Popes erred regarding the dogmatic content of their authority, one must accept that a simple priest can be the extraordinary minister of priestly ordination, provided he has received papal delegation.”—Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1955
The unproven idea that only bishops can ordain priests has been used as a false premise by some radical schismatics who wish to sow spurious doubts in the minds of faithful Catholics about the validity of the sacraments they receive. These diabolical ploys to unjustly deprive the faithful of grace-giving sacraments can be dismantled piecemeal with the truths shown by authentic Catholic doctrine and practice.
“The minister of this sacrament is the bishop, who indeed is the ordinary minister; to whom belong the other orders, which he himself confers, and he alone.”—— Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, 1439
What can be rightly deduced from the council father's inspired decision to use the word “ordinary” is that there is a possibility that an extraordinary minister can also administer the sacrament. Indeed, Catholic theologians have speculated that the potestas ordinis (power of order) that a priest receives at his ordination into the order of the presbyteriate suffices to perform any higher order as it is fundamentally identical to that of a bishop, albeit ordinarily restricted by the jurisdictional laws of the Church. When the Pope grants a delegation for a simple priest to ordain men priests, he does not pre-emptively infuse a new sacramental character into the priest, which would be a theological innovation, but rather allows a simple priest’s inherent sacramental power to function. The Franciscan theologian John Duns Scotus (1266–1308) writes that there is no ontological impediment to priests ordaining other priests.
“The character of the priesthood is the same in the simple priest and the bishop. Therefore, if the Pope gives a simple priest the execution of his order, that priest can validly ordain to any order, even to the priesthood itself. The reason the ordinary priest does not do so daily is due to a limitation placed upon him by the authority of the Church for the sake of peace and order, which limitation the Sovereign Pontiff can dispense.”—John Duns Scotus, Oxoniense (Reportata Parisiensia), IV, d. 25.
Scotus's contemporary St. Thomas Aquinas would argue for a different position in his Summa Theologiae, but in his earlier Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, he admitted that a Pope could hypothetically delegate a simple priest the power to ordain another priest.
“Since a priest has the highest power over the real Body of Christ [in the Consecration of the Eucharist], his power of order can be extended by papal commission to things which do not immediately touch the real Body, such as the conferral of orders, including the presbyterate.”—— St. Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sententiarum, d. 25, q. 1, a. 1, ad 3.
These writings of such eminent theologians are not mere speculations but rather the obvious understanding of what has been Catholic doctrine and practice for centuries. In the early Church, men known as chorepiscopi (rural bishops) evidently included simple presbyters, and their ability to perform ordinations is not put into question by regional councils imposing disciplines on them. In the year 341, for example, the Council of Antioch forbade that the so-called chorepiscopi from ordaining priests without the bishop of the city to which they were subject.
“It is not lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons, and most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the bishop given in writing, in another parish.”—The Council of Ancyra, Canon 13, AD 314
Rather than dismissing it as an impossibility, such regional synods imply that it was a real ontological possibility for them to ordain new priests without being bishops themselves. Some historians have questioned whether the chorepiscopi really were simple priests with the power to ordain clerics. Referencing the similar decrees of the later council of Laodicea, the Orator theologian Louis Thomassin (1619-95) concludes in his Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Église that the chorepiscopi usually “had only the title without consecration,” although he questions the Greek reading of the Council of Ancyra. Down through the years, it has become even clearer that it is possible for presbyters to be ordained by simple priests. On 1 February 1400, Pope Boniface IX, dealing with the chaos caused by the Avignon antipopes, granted the Augustinian Abbot of St. Osyth in Essex, England (otherwise a simple priest) the right to ordain his monks ad omnes sacros ordines, etiam presbyteratus (to all holy orders, even the presbyterate).
“...We, having been moved by the petitions of the said Abbot and Convent in this matter, grant that the same abbot and his successors, being for the time abbots of the said monastery, may freely and lawfully confer upon all and each of the canons of the said monastery, present and future, who have made profession therein, all the minor orders as well as the orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest, at the times prescribed by law; and that the said canons, thus promoted by the said abbots, may lawfully and freely exercise ministry in the orders so received. Notwithstanding any apostolic constitutions and any other enactments to the contrary, however issued and however strengthened by authority, We, by apostolic authority and by the tenor of these presents, grant this privilege to the said abbot and his successors and to their canons...”—Pope Boniface IX, Sacrae Religionis, 1400, (quoted by Franz Gillmann in Zur Lehre der Scholastik vom Spender der Firmung und des Weihesakraments, 1920)
Upon the insistance of the bishop of London, Boniface IX eventually revoked the privilege in 1403 with the bull Apostolicae Sedis, but his original bull is not the only one to express such notions. Pope Martin V in Gerentes Ad Vos (1427) and Pope Innocent VIII in Expositum Nobis (1489) let certain abbots (who were not all bishops) confer on their monks at least some of the major orders. The constant practice of the Church is proof enough of the idea's theological validity.
“It must be held as highly probable that a simple priest can be delegated by the Pope as an extraordinary minister of the priesthood... For we have the clear examples of the Supreme Pontiffs who granted this privilege to certain abbots. To say that the Popes erred in a matter of such gravity, and that the sacraments so administered were null, would be a slap against the providence of Christ over His Church.”—Francisco Suárez, De Sacramentis, Disp. 45, Sec. 3.
Dominic Prümmer, O.P., in his manual of moral theology expresses the contrary opinion, that “the popes in question were acting on a flawed theological opinion of their time, which does not compromise papal infallibility since these administrative indults were not dogmatic definitions.” Pope Pius XII exercised his power of governance over the current regulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders in his 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis by saying that in the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood, “the matter is the first imposition of hands of the bishop which is done in silence.” This is the current legislation regarding the issue, but it has no effect on the ontological reality. Dr. Ludwig Ott's 1955 manual of dogmatic theology still regards it as possible that while the bishop is the ordinary minister, a simple priest could theoretically be the extraordinary minister of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
“If one does not wish to assume that the Popes erred regarding the dogmatic content of their authority, one must accept that a simple priest can be the extraordinary minister of priestly ordination, provided he has received papal delegation.”—Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1955
The unproven idea that only bishops can ordain priests has been used as a false premise by some radical schismatics who wish to sow spurious doubts in the minds of faithful Catholics about the validity of the sacraments they receive. These diabolical ploys to unjustly deprive the faithful of grace-giving sacraments can be dismantled piecemeal with the truths shown by authentic Catholic doctrine and practice.
Google Sites
Report abuse