The Council of Trent mentions the following traditional major and minor orders when discussing the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. It mentions the following offices "Sacerdos", Diaconate,Subdiaconate, Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Porter). This can be seen in Session 23 of the Council of Trent Chapter 2. The Latin and English Translation of this part of the Council read as follows:
Nam non solum de sacerdotibus, sed et de Diaconis sacrae literae apertam mentionem faciunt; et quae maxime in illorum ordinatione attendenda sunt, gravissimis verbis docent; et ab ipso Ecclesiae initio sequentium Ordinum nomina, at que uniuscujusque eorum propria ministeria, Subdiaconi scilicet, Acolyti, Exorcistae, lectoris et Ostiarii, in usu fuisse cognoscuntur, quamvis non pari gradu. Nam Subdiaconatus ad majores ordines a Patribus et sacris Conciliis refertur, in quibus et de aliis inferiroribus frequentissime legimus.
For the Sacred Scriptures mention unmistakably not only the priests but also the deacons,[3] and teach in the most definite words what is especially to be observed in their ordination; and from the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely, those of the sub-deacon, acolyte, exorcist, rector and porter, though these were not of equal rank; for the sub-diaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and holy councils,[4] in which we also read very often of other inferior orders.[5]
IIRC, it is interesting to note that the actual text of the Council never explicitly defines the number of major and minor Orders to seven nor even says that the list itself is an exhaustive list of all of the orders. As far as I can tell, the decree also isn't particularly clear about which Orders confer an indelible character upon the soul....with the exception of those who receive ordination to be a "sacerdos." These people are emphatically described as receiving an indelible character in Chapter IV of Session 23 of Trent.
One point of confusion is that there are several different words being used in the Latin of the Council's decrees that are all translated as Priest in English. The word "sacerdos" can refer to both bishops and priests and refers to a type of office which explicitly offers sacrifices. The other word for what we today think of as a priest is "presbyterus" and it means literally means an "elder" though we usually translate it as "priest" in English today. The word presbyter IMO seems to generally seems to refer to a presiding figure not necessarily involved in the capacity of offering sacrifice, though a presbyter was always ordained to be a sacerdos at the time of his ordination to the order of the presbyterate. Thus a Presbyter and a bishop can both act as a Sacerdos. This combined with the Catholic Church's practice of allowing a bishop to delegate a priest the ability to confer sacraments usually reserved for the bishop also seems to be a strong support in favor of the Bound Powers Theory.
However, the Decrees of the Council of Trent also offer arguments that seem to undermine the Bound Powers Theory. For instance, since the word Sacerdos means one who offers sacrifice, the use of this word tells us only that a sacerdos is a person authorized to offer the sacrifice of the mass, but it tells us nothing about whether all sacerdotes have a fullness of Sacramental power to confer ALL of the Sacraments validly without a Bishop. The right to confer some sacraments are not conferred when a presbyter is ordained a sacerdos.... For instance, sacraments such as Holy Orders as far as I am aware are never allowed to be delegated to a non-bishop, and thus I think it is safe to say that Sacerdotes are not capable of Ordaining without a bishop. In the old pre-1969 Latin ordination of priests and bishops, the powers conferred by Holy Orders were made clear as to what priests could do. (The powers conferred were actually explicitly listed in the rite of ordination. The current post-1969 Rite of Ordination in the Latin Church is very vague on this point.) In any case, the Older form of ordination for presbyters in the Latin Church does not seem to have given a fullness of authority to the presbyters. Bishops are also distinguished in an order of their own in Trent when it calls the bishops another "grade" of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. In Chapter IV of Session 23 it says:
praeter caeteros Ecclesiasticos gradus, Episcopos, qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt, ad hunc hierarchicum Ordinem praecipue pertinere, et positos, sicut idem Apostolus ait, a Spiritu S. regere Ecclesiam Dei: eosque presbyteris superiores esse; ac Sacramentum Confirmationis conferre; ministros Ecclesiae ordinare; atque alia pleraque peragere ipsos posse; quarum functionum potestatem reliqui inferioris Ordinis nullam habent.
Wherefore, the holy council declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, principally belong to this hierarchical order, and have been placed, as the same Apostle says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God;[11] that they are superior to priests, administer the sacrament of confirmation,[12] ordain ministers of the Church, and can perform many other functions over which those of an inferior order have no power.
Another important part fact to notice from the above quotation is the last sentence says that bishops are superior to priests in power and that there are some powers over which the orders inferior to the bishops have no power. Here the council seems to directly imply that the bishops are indeed an "order" and there are orders inferior to them.
Thus the bishops are strongly implied to be an "order" in the Church Hierarchy. I would thus be strongly inclined to say that bishops do indeed receive a sacrament when they are consecrated a bishop. This fact is also strongly supported by Trent which says:
Cum Scripturae testimonio, Apostolica traditione, et Patrum unaimi consensu perspicuum sit, per sacram ordinationem, quae verbis, et fignis exteriroribus perficitur, gratiam conferri; dubitare nemo debet, Ordinem esse vere et proprie unum ex septem sanctae Ecclesiae Sacramentis: inquit enim Apostolus; Admoneo te, ut resuscites gratiam Dei, quae est in te, per impositionem manuum mearum, non enim dedit nobis Deus spiritum timoris, sed virtutis, et dilectionis, et sobrietatis.
Since from the testimony of Scripture, Apostolic tradition and the unanimous agreement of the Fathers it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the Apostle says:
It seems to me that me that episcopal would almost certainly be a sacrament. The council calls the elevation of a bishop an "ordination" (i.e. "in ordinatione episcoporum".) Also When a priest is consecrated a bishop, hands are imposed and authority and grace is granted. There are outward signs and symbols that demonstrate that grace is being conferred on the bishop. The consecration of a bishop is thus the outward sign of the conferral of Grace and by definition a Sacrament.
The Catholic Church also seems to infallibly declare that the episcopate is a degree of Holy Orders when it says the following in Canon VI of Session 23 of the Council of Trent:
Canon VI Si quis dixerit, in Ecclesia Catholica non esse hierarchiam divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, Presbyteris, et ministris; anathema sit.
Canon 6. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not instituted a hierarchy by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, priests and ministers, let him be anathema.
Finally, Canon 7 also infallibly says that the power held by bishops is not common to priests. This canon declares:
Canon VII: Si quis dixerit, Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi, a et ordinandi; vel eam, quam habent, illis esse cum Presbyteris communem; vel Ordines ab ipsis collatos sine populi, vel potestatis saecularis consensu, aut vocatione, irritos esse, aut eos, qui nec ab ecclesiastica et canonica potestate rite ordinati, nec missi sunt, sed aliunde veniunt, legitimos esse verbi et Sacramentorum ministros; anathema sit.
Canon 7. If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power to confirm and ordain, or that the power which they have is common to them and to priests, or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema.
Let me know what you think. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.
I'll try as best I can.
IIRC, it is interesting to note that the actual text of the Council never explicitly defines the number of major and minor Orders to seven nor even says that the list itself is an exhaustive list of all of the orders. As far as I can tell, the decree also isn't particularly clear about which Orders confer an indelible character upon the soul....with the exception of those who receive ordination to be a "sacerdos."
Exactly; and that was part of the point of my article. Both councils (Trent and Vatican II) spoke as if these matter had already been settled, but didn't bother to mention who settled them and when. Certainly, neither council took it upon itself to do so, as your citation from Trent indicates. That's why I'm maintaining that these matters are still open for debate.
In the old pre-1969 Latin ordination of priests and bishops, the powers conferred by Holy Orders were made clear as to what priests could do. (The powers conferred were actually explicitly listed in the rite of ordination. The current post-1969 Rite of Ordination in the Latin Church is very vague on this point.) In any case, the Older form of ordination for presbyters in the Latin Church does not seem to have given a fullness of authority to the presbyters. Bishops are also distinguished in an order of their own in Trent when it calls the bishops another "grade" of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
Again, you are correct; but I'm not sure I would ascribe the kind of clarity to it that you are. While the old ordination rite lists what the priest can do (and, by ommission, what he can't, though that may be an assumption), it doesn't tell us why. In other words, does the ordination rite for a priest not mention the power to ordain because that power is not being confered, or because that power, present in the sacrament per se is being "held bound", to be released (not confered) should the man be raised to the episcopate? You are also correct that, generally speaking, the new rite is much less clear; but, at the same time, I have some aversion to using a liturgical rite to define dogma. Liturgy should reflect the teaching of the Church; but there is no guarantee that it does so, as liturgical rites are not dogmatically declaritive in themselves. For example, the new rite for the "ordination" of a bishop contains the words, "Raise this, your son, to the fullness of the priesthood." Obviously, as a proponent of the Bound Powers Theory, I'm not accepting that at face value. And, as you mention, we don't know exactly what is meant by the word "grade". Does it refer to a fuller participation in the sacrament, or does it simply refer to a "rank" which has nothing to do with a sacrament? A perusal of the relatio of the Council of Trent would seem to indicate that, not only were the council fathers not sure themselves, but suggests that they deliberately decided not to be clearer on the matter because they did not want to teach definitively on this issue. In other words, neither council wanted to "man up" and actually define it one way of the other. Each choose a "point of view" so to speak, and ran with it, teaching it as if it had already be settled, but with full knowledge that it, in fact, was not settled.
Wherefore, the holy council declares that, besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops, who have succeeded the Apostles, principally belong to this hierarchical order, and have been placed, as the same Apostle says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God;[11] that they are superior to priests, administer the sacrament of confirmation,[12] ordain ministers of the Church, and can perform many other functions over which those of an inferior order have no power.
This citation you give from Trent is, of course, the most convincing that I'm wrong; particularly the last sentence, which seems to indicate that those of inferior rank have "no power." That would seem to settle it; but, as one of my seminary professors said, "quarum functionum potestatem reliqui inferioris Ordinis nullam habent", is not necessarily immune to interpretation. For example, if one subscribes to the Bound Powers Theory, then the ability of the Magisterium to "hold bound" powers sacramentally confered would fit into this language. Remember that the Bound Powers Theory would still maintain that a priest who attempts to ordain without authorization does so invalidly, not just illicitly. Likewise, notice on the citation from Trent that it includes in the "powers" not available to those of inferior rank, it mentions Confirmation; yet, do we not know that Confirmation can be administered by any priest to a soul in danger of death, or to anyone with the delegation of the bishop? In the Eastern Church in which I serve, this sacrament is routinely given to all children at their baptism. So, whatever Trent means by "power", I would tend to say that it doesn't mean that the sacramental power has not been confered, but that it is forbidden, or, in the case of ordination, actually held bound as pertains even to validity.
Canon 7. If anyone says that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power to confirm and ordain, or that the power which they have is common to them and to priests, or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments, let him be anathema.
This would seem to seal the deal, as it were; however, when this matter was raised in the seminary, it was pointed out that the emphatic language of the Canons was in response to a state of confussion in the Church (not unlike today), in which everyone thought everything was up for grabs. As my professor said, "The fact that Trent says you're anathema for saying it, doesn't necessary mean you're wrong; just that you're anathema."
So, I would still tend to agree with him that one is still free to accept either point of view until such time as someone actually defines the issue in an unambiguous way. Of course, I may be totally washed up about this issue; but I thought it was worth exploring in light of the Holy Father's devotion to St. Augustine. I know this doesn't answer all the points you made; but I hope it's enough to let you know I appreciate the discussion.