← Back to Distinction 24

Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 24

Textus Latinus
p. 617

Quaestio III. Utrum Sacramentum ordinis sit novae legis proprium.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum ordinis sit novae legis proprium. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia in Psalmo1 dicitur Christo: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech; hoc dictum est de Christi sacerdotio, sicut exponit Apostolus ad Hebraeos: ergo sacerdotium Christi prius in Melchisedech praecessit: ergo et ordo. Si tu dicas, quod praecessit in figura; contra: ita praecessit ad figuram in sacerdotio Aaron: ergo debet dici secundum ordinem Aaron; quod tamen non decuit dici, ut Apostolus2 ostendit.

2. Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo3: Omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducaverunt: ergo vere fuit sacrificium; sed ordo est ad sacrificium administrandum: ergo idem ordo et idem Sacramentum.

3. Item, Ecclesia est unica ab Abel usque ad finem mundi4; et in unica unitate unus debet esse ordo: ergo Sacramentum ordinis est unum in novo et veteri testamento.

4. Item, Sacramentum ordinis est de dictamine legis naturalis — et hoc patet, quia ab initio fuerunt sacerdotes, ut patet exemplo Melchisedech5, et Hieronymus dicit — sed quod est de dictamine naturae semper idem perseverat, et hoc manifestum est in matrimonio: ergo idem debet esse ordo in veteri testamento et in novo: ergo Sacramentum hoc commune est, non proprium.

Contra: 1. Ad Hebraeos septimo6: Translato sacerdotio, necesse est, ut et legis translatio fiat: sic ergo Apostolus probat diversitatem legis per diversitatem sacerdotii; cum alia et alia sit lex, videtur, quod alius et alius sit ordo.

2. Item, «ordo est spirituale signaculum, in quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato7», utpote in supremo ordine traditur potestas conficiendi corpus Christi; sed hoc est proprium solius novae legis: ergo etc.

3. Item, Sacramenta novae legis alia sunt et nova: ergo ad dispensanda haec, cum sint maiora et digniora8, maior et dignior potestas requiritur: si ergo Sacramenta, quae dispensantur, sunt diversa; ergo et Sacramentum, per quod dispensantur. Sed hoc est ordo: ergo etc.

4. Item, idem ordo non est iterandus9; sed ordinatus in lege, si veniat ad Evangelium, ibidem ordinatur: ergo videtur, quod alius sit ordo et aliud Sacramentum.

Conclusio

Conclusio. Sacramentum ordinis est proprium novae legis et in veteri praefiguratum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut signum sortitur nomen signati, et e converso; et tamen signum et signatum sunt diversa: sic figura nomen p. 618 veritatis sortitur, et unum dicitur esse in alio, sicut rota in rota10; et tamen aliud est figura, aliud est veritas. Per hunc modum intelligendum, quod lex nova differt a veteri, et sacrificium a sacrificio, et ordo ab ordine. Unde sicut Sacramentum eucharistiae est novae legis proprium, quamvis in veteri lege fuerit sacrificium, quod erat huius signum; sic spiritualis potestas, secundum quam attenditur ordinis Sacramentum, est novae legis propria, sacerdotium similiter, quamvis inferioris11 ordinis sacerdotii praecesserit signum figurativum. Unde sicut multum differt inter agnum verum et typicum; sic multum, licet non tantum, differt inter potestatem offerendi hunc agnum et illum. — Et ideo concedendum, quod sicut baptismus et eucharistia sunt Sacramenta novae legis propria, licet in anterioribus fuerint praefigurata12; sic in sacra ordinatione.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum ordinem Melchisedech; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur secundum expressam praefigurationem, sicut ibidem13 Apostolus ostendit, quia praefiguravit Christum quantum ad originem et quantum ad dignitatem et quantum ad ritum: quantum ad originem, quia sine genealogia, scilicet expressa in Scriptura; quantum ad dignitatem, quia fuit sacerdos et rex et Abraham benedixit; quantum ad ritum, quia obtulit panem et vinum. Non sic in sacerdotio Aaron. Et ideo peroptime appropriat in Psalmo Spiritus sanctus, et eleganter valde exponit Apostolus.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eandem escam manducaverunt; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur non de manducatione sacramentali, sed spirituali, quae est per fidem et caritatem; et quia idem, quod nos, crediderunt et amaverunt: ideo eandem escam manducaverunt et de eadem Ecclesia fuerunt; nec tamen eadem signa sensibilia habuerunt nec eadem Sacramenta. Et ratio huius visa est supra14, cum agebatur de Sacramentorum differentia. — Et per hoc patet ratio altera de unitate ecclesiastica, quia illa est secundum fidei convenientiam, non secundum Sacramentorum indifferentiam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est de dictamine naturae; dicendum, quod verum est in universali, non in speciali. Bene enim dictat ratio recta, Deum esse colendum, et ad hoc speciales ministros constituendos; sed taliter colendum, et tale sacrificium offerendum, et talem potestatem collatam esse hominibus, hoc non est naturae, sed gratiae15.

---

English Translation
p. 617

Question III. Whether the sacrament of order is proper to the new law.

Thirdly it is asked whether the sacrament of order is proper to the new law. And that it is not, it seems:

1. Because in the Psalm1 it is said to Christ: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek; this was said of Christ's priesthood, as the Apostle expounds to the Hebrews: therefore the priesthood of Christ first preceded in Melchizedek: therefore also the order [preceded]. If you say that it preceded in figure; on the contrary: it likewise preceded as a figure in the priesthood of Aaron: therefore it ought to be called "according to the order of Aaron"; which nevertheless it was not fitting to say, as the Apostle2 shows.

2. Likewise, in the first [epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter ten3: All ate the same spiritual food: therefore there truly was a sacrifice; but order is for administering sacrifice: therefore [there is] the same order and the same sacrament.

3. Likewise, the Church is one from Abel to the end of the world4; and in one unity there ought to be one order: therefore the sacrament of order is one in the new and the old testament.

4. Likewise, the sacrament of order is of the dictate of natural law — and this is evident, because from the beginning there were priests, as is evident from the example of Melchizedek5, and Jerome says [so] — but what is of the dictate of nature always remains the same, and this is manifest in matrimony: therefore the order in the old testament and in the new ought to be the same: therefore this sacrament is common, not proper.

On the contrary: 1. To the Hebrews, chapter seven6: The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law also be made: thus therefore the Apostle proves the diversity of the law through the diversity of the priesthood; since the law is one and another, it seems that the order is one and another.

2. Likewise, «order is a spiritual seal, in which spiritual power is handed on to the one ordained7», inasmuch as in the highest order there is handed on the power of confecting the body of Christ; but this is proper to the new law alone: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the sacraments of the new law are other and new: therefore for dispensing these, since they are greater and more worthy8, a greater and worthier power is required: if therefore the sacraments which are dispensed are diverse; therefore also the sacrament through which they are dispensed [is diverse]. But this is order: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the same order is not to be repeated9; but one ordained under the law, if he come to the Gospel, is ordained there [again]: therefore it seems that the order is other and the sacrament other.

Conclusion

Conclusion. The sacrament of order is proper to the new law and was prefigured in the old.

I respond: It must be said that, just as a sign takes the name of the thing signified, and conversely; and yet the sign and the thing signified are diverse: so a figure takes the name p. 618 of the truth, and the one is said to be in the other, as a wheel within a wheel10; and yet the figure is one thing, the truth another. In this manner it is to be understood that the new law differs from the old, and sacrifice from sacrifice, and order from order. Whence, just as the sacrament of the eucharist is proper to the new law, although in the old law there was a sacrifice which was a sign of it; so the spiritual power, according to which the sacrament of order is regarded, is proper to the new law, and the priesthood likewise, although a figurative sign of an inferior11 order of priesthood preceded. Whence, just as there is much difference between the true lamb and the typical one; so there is much difference, though not so much, between the power of offering this lamb and that. — And therefore it must be conceded that, just as baptism and the eucharist are sacraments proper to the new law, although in earlier [times] they were prefigured12; so [it is] in sacred ordination.

1. To that which is objected, concerning "according to the order of Melchizedek"; it must be said that this is understood according to an express prefiguration, as the Apostle shows in the same place13, since [Melchizedek] prefigured Christ as to origin and as to dignity and as to rite: as to origin, because [he was] without genealogy, namely one expressed in Scripture; as to dignity, because he was priest and king and blessed Abraham; as to rite, because he offered bread and wine. Not so in the priesthood of Aaron. And therefore the Holy Spirit most excellently appropriates [this] in the Psalm, and the Apostle expounds it very elegantly.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that they ate the same food; it must be said that this is understood not of sacramental eating, but of spiritual [eating], which is through faith and charity; and because they believed and loved the same [things] as we [do]: therefore they ate the same food and were of the same Church; nor yet did they have the same sensible signs nor the same sacraments. And the reason for this was seen above14, when the difference of the sacraments was treated. — And through this the other reason concerning ecclesiastical unity is evident, because that [unity] is according to the agreement of faith, not according to an indifference of sacraments.

4. To that which is objected, that it is of the dictate of nature; it must be said that it is true in the universal, not in the particular. For right reason well dictates that God is to be worshipped, and that for this special ministers are to be appointed; but that He is to be worshipped in such a way, and that such a sacrifice is to be offered, and that such a power has been conferred on men, this is not of nature, but of grace15.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Psalm. 109, 4. — Hebr. 7, 11. 17. 21.
    Psalm 109[:4]. — Hebrews 7:11, 17, 21.
  2. 2
    Hebr. 7, 11. — Superius pro contra cod. U hoc nihil est, quia, edd. respondeo, quae etiam pro ad [codd. M aa quoad, cod. O quantum ad] figuram cum uno alteroque cod. in figura.
    Hebrews 7:11. — Above, for contra codex U [reads] hoc nihil est, quia ("this is nothing, because"), the editions respondeo ("I respond"); which [editions] also, for ad figuram ("as a figure") [codices M and aa quoad, codex O quantum ad], read with one and another codex in figura ("in figure").
  3. 3
    Vers. 3. — Verbis ergo vere Vat. interserit idem.
    Verse 3. — To the words ergo vere ("therefore truly") the Vatican [edition] inserts idem ("the same").
  4. 4
    Cfr. supra pag. 184, nota 8.
    Cf. above, page 184, note 8.
  5. 5
    Gen. 14, 18. — Verba Hieron. (sumta ex eius lib. Hebraic. Quaest. in Gen. 14, 18.) exhibentur a Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum in hunc locum, et in ipsis refertur opinio Hebraeorum contendentium, Melchisedech fuisse Sem, filium Noe. Cfr. eius Epist. 73. (alias 126.) n. 5. seq., ubi huic opinioni adiungitur, quod usque ad sacerdotium Aaron omnes primogeniti ex stirpe Noe fuerint sacerdotes etc.
    Genesis 14:18. — The words of Jerome (taken from his book Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14:18) are presented by the Ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyra on this passage, and in them is reported the opinion of the Hebrews contending that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. Cf. his Letter 73 (alias 126), n. 5f., where to this opinion is added that up to the priesthood of Aaron all the firstborn of the stock of Noah were priests, etc.
  6. 6
    Vers. 12.
    Verse 12.
  7. 7
    Ut docet Magister, hic in lit. c. 13.
    As the Master teaches, here in the text, chapter 13.
  8. 8
    Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. verba Augustini. — Superius pro et nova cod. aa a Sacramentis veteris legis.
    See above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1, in the body, the words of Augustine. — Above, for et nova ("and new") codex aa [reads] a Sacramentis veteris legis ("from the sacraments of the old law").
  9. 9
    Cfr. infra p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — De seqq. cfr. supra d. 2. a. 2. q. 3.
    Cf. below, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — On what follows cf. above, d. 2, a. 2, q. 3.
  10. 10
    Ezech. 1, 16. et 10, 10. Cfr. supra pag. 181, nota 3. — August., 1. Locution. de Gen. n. 143: Multum haec locutio notanda est, ubi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur; inde est, quod ait Apostolus [1. Cor. 10, 4.]: Petra autem erat Christus, non ait: Petra significabat Christum.
    Ezekiel 1:16 and 10:10. Cf. above, page 181, note 3. — Augustine, Locutions on Genesis, book 1, n. 143: This manner of speaking is much to be noted, where certain signifying things are called by the name of the things which they signify; hence it is that the Apostle says [1 Cor. 10:4]: The rock, however, was Christ — he does not say: The rock signified Christ.
  11. 11
    Ed. 1 et plurimi codd. inferius, Vat. istius, cod. O alterius.
    Edition 1 and most codices [read] inferius, the Vatican [edition] istius, codex O alterius.
  12. 12
    Cfr. supra d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. et 2.
    Cf. above, d. 8, p. 1, a. 1 and 2.
  13. 13
    Hebr. 7, 1. seqq. Cfr. Gen. 14, 18. seq. — Circa finem solut. in edd. desideratur Spiritus sanctus.
    Hebrews 7:1ff. Cf. Genesis 14:18f. — Near the end of the solution, in the editions Spiritus sanctus ("the Holy Spirit") is wanting.
  14. 14
    Dist. 1. p. 1. q. 5. et d. 2. a. 1. q. 2.
    Distinction 1, p. 1, q. 5, and d. 2, a. 1, q. 2.
  15. 15
    Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Superius pro taliter multi codd. tatem, edd. tali cultu. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    Cf. above, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Above, for taliter ("in such a way") many codices [read] tatem, the editions tali cultu ("with such worship"). — See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---
← Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 4→